GLPHubglpresearchhub.com
Read-only archive. GLP Research Hub is a static community record — nothing here is for sale, no account is needed, and no vote you cast is counted. Why?
Archived. This submission is more than a year old. Votes and new comments are closed, and some of the advice in it may have been superseded — check the community wiki for the current version.
438
c/trialwatch·posted 1 year ago by u/anders_vermeulen

does FLOW actually matter or is it forum lore at this point

Readout Long Haul ×6

Trying to settle this properly because the thread from last year went in circles.

The claim: FLOW matters. The counter-claim: it is measurement error. Both sides have been asserting it confidently for about 22 months without either producing anything.

What would actually settle it is 3 people measuring the same thing the same way. I have started; my numbers are below. They lean one way but not strongly enough for me to declare victory.

If you have data, post the data. If you have an opinion, flair it as an opinion.

702 up / 264 down73% upvoted27 commentsid 4oyc7c4 Mar 2025

27 comments

23 in this archive, depth 5

best — the order this archive was captured in

u/emil_agyeman42 points·1 year ago

off-label use data is different from approved-indication data

replysharereportpermalink
u/joaquin_stanescu18 points·1 year ago

Which trial and what was the primary endpoint?

replysharereportpermalink
u/ines_castellanos14 points·1 year ago

the discontinuation arms are the interesting part, not the SURPASS endpoints

replysharereportpermalink
u/sofia_ferreira11 points·1 year ago·edited

I am going to push back on this slightly.

replysharereportpermalink
u/formulary_fighterappeals25 points·1 year ago

Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.

replysharereportpermalink
u/prior_auth_painappeals21 points·1 year ago

event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone

replysharereportpermalink
u/forest_plot_fionaMOD8 points·1 year ago·edited

Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next time and we are square.

replysharereportpermalink
u/tb500_tangent2 points·1 year ago

event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone

replysharereportpermalink
u/rulebook_rachaelmod · c/meta2 points·1 year ago

Slight fix: the number was 99.2, not 99.1. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.

replysharereportpermalink
u/marit_laurent10 points·1 year ago

Phase 2 TRIUMPH looked amazing. Phase 3 trials are harder. Do not anchor on phase 2 readouts.

replysharereportpermalink
u/sofia_ferreira13 points·1 year ago·edited
genuine question, not being difficult: how do you know
replysharereportpermalink
u/foam_head_fred-27 points·1 year ago

genuine question, not being difficult: how do you know

Disagree on that part. 98.1% and 98.9% on the same vial is normal.

replysharereportpermalink
u/niels_norgaard1 point·1 year ago

Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.

replysharereportpermalink
u/joaquin_trevino1 point·1 year ago

the 11 week readout is different from the 5 week readout

replysharereportpermalink
u/rina_sobczak1 point·1 year ago

give the trial name, phase, n, and primary endpoint in the body

replysharereportpermalink
u/anders_vermeulenOP1 point·1 year ago

genuine question, not being difficult: how do you know Disagree on that part.

Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.

replysharereportpermalink
[removed]1 point·1 year ago

[removed by moderator]

replysharereportpermalink
u/joaquin_trevino1 point·1 year ago

event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone

replysharereportpermalink
u/milan_mensah1 point·1 year ago

the 18 week readout is different from the 19 week readout

replysharereportpermalink
u/foam_head_fred1 point·1 year ago

I am going to push back on this slightly.

replysharereportpermalink
u/customs_seizure_sid7 points·1 year ago

Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.

replysharereportpermalink
u/yusuf_ramos4 points·1 year ago

the relative risk reduction in headlines is not the whole story

replysharereportpermalink
u/laila_almeida2 points·1 year ago

dropout handling matters, especially on GI-heavy populations

replysharereportpermalink
Permalinked branches
Deep branches get their own page so a single reply chain can be linked and read on its own.
About c/trialwatch

Clinical trial reading group. New readouts, protocol amendments, endpoint definitions, dropout handling, and the difference between a press release and a publication. Absolute risk reduction and number-needed-to-treat are house dialect here.

34kmembers
95submissions
Nov 2023created
submissions / month, last year
Sponsored

Sigma-Aldrich Standards

Certified reference materials for peptide identity and purity work.

sigmaaldrich.com
c/trialwatch rules
  1. Press-release-only posts must be flaired Press Release until a publication exists.
  2. Give the trial name, phase, n, and primary endpoint in the body.
  3. Relative risk reduction alone is not a result. Show the absolute numbers.
  4. Independent community. Nobody here sells anything, and anyone who tries is banned.
  5. Not medical advice. Describe what you did; never prescribe to a stranger.
  6. Claims need evidence. Batch numbers, dated screenshots, independent test reports, or a citation.
  7. No referral links, discount codes or affiliate URLs. Permanent ban, no appeal.
  8. No contact handles, wallet addresses or tracking numbers — they identify people.
  9. Be recognisably decent. Disagree hard, insult nobody.
Moderators
Volunteers. Unpaid, unaffiliated, and reachable through modmail only.
Before you read on

Several compounds discussed on GLP Research Hub are sold for research use only and are not approved for human use anywhere. Nothing here is medical advice and none of it is written by your clinician. If a post reads like an instruction, treat it as a description of what one stranger did.