Reading a supplementary appendix and finding the interesting part

Reading a supplementary appendix and finding the interesting part — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.

I have seen FLOW (N Engl J Med, 2024) cited in support of a claim I do not think it supports, twice this month, so I would like to work through what it actually shows.

My reading is that the trial is sound for its own question and is being stretched to answer a different one. I might be wrong about that, which is why this is a topic rather than a correction.

What I would like from this discussion: someone who disagrees with me to say why, with the section of the paper they are relying on.

Multiplicity and multiple comparisons: if a trial tests many hypotheses, the chance of a false positive on at least one by random chance increases. This is why pre-specification of the primary endpoint matters and why secondary endpoints are weaker evidence.

post #34 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Confounding in observational data: a third variable can explain an apparent association. In a randomised trial, randomisation balances unknown confounders. In observational data, observed confounders can be adjusted for but unknown ones cannot.

Two things before anyone answers the substance.

First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.

This follows post #59 rather than contradicting it.

The estimand: what the trial set out to estimate. Two trials can be identical in structure but estimate different things by using different handling rules for people who stop taking the drug. Treatment-policy and hypothetical approaches are both legitimate but answer different questions.

Risk of bias: structured appraisal of internal validity. Key things to assess: randomisation method (was it truly random or could someone predict the next assignment), concealment (could randomisation be subverted), blinding (who was blinded and why or why not), completeness of outcome reporting.

Absolute numbers, not just relative: a 30% relative reduction tells you the ratio but not the practical magnitude. The event rate in each arm and the difference between them tells you how many people benefit.

Risk of bias: structured appraisal of internal validity. Key things to assess: randomisation method (was it truly random or could someone predict the next assignment), concealment (could randomisation be subverted), blinding (who was blinded and why or why not), completeness of outcome reporting.

Coming back to post #90, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.

The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.