Journal club: FLOW and the renal composite, component by component

Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.

FLOW (N Engl J Med 2024): Semaglutide renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Stopped early for efficacy. Component-by-component analysis is essential because the components differ in how patient-important they are.

Post #26 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.

Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.

The figures usually contain the finding and the text usually contains the interpretation. Separating them for the first twenty minutes is a discipline worth keeping.

The short answer was in the first line; everything after is the working.

Reading order that works for these sessions: registry entry, methods, baseline table, primary result, then abstract last. Reading the abstract first anchors everything that follows.

That is the honest state of it as of this week.

Post #44 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.

The most common failure mode is spending fifty minutes on the effect size and ten on the population. Reversing that ratio would improve most sessions.

I read post #70 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.

I would treat that as a working assumption and revisit it.

Coming back to post #73, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

The most common failure mode is spending fifty minutes on the effect size and ten on the population. Reversing that ratio would improve most sessions.

I would rather be precise about what I do not know than vague about what I do.

Narrowing post #81, because the general version has more than one answer.

Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.