This is a fascinating paper (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871403X19305472 …) Meta-analysis of cross-sectional/cohort studies. The authors use strong causal language in their abstract (skipping breakfast = obesity), but it's hard to see how that's supported in the text https://twitter.com/WohaibiMD/status/1216424814455525376 …
-
-
I think it's possible it could be a language issue, but given the recommendations my suspicion is that the authors intended to say that skipping breakfast causes obesity
Show this thread -
Also worth noting that the limitations are significant. In particular, the heterogeneity of what "breakfast" means is a massive issuepic.twitter.com/IGBEBC1Whb
Show this thread -
I'm also not sure you can say "our paper doesn't address this issue at all" then claim a solid causal link If it's an issue, explain why your results are true in spite of the problem otherwise we have to assume it's a potential source of bias that you can't exclude!
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.