Now, it's not the fault of the media that this was reported wrong - it's wrong IN THE PAPER This is perhaps not surprising, because there are quite a few other mistakes...
-
Show this thread
-
This sentence is statistically weird. If you're correcting for multiple comparisons (good) you can't just undo that by using the 'trend'pic.twitter.com/AiaTknBffm
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
The authors also report 'relative risks' even though they used logistic models You ~can~ convert the results of a logistic model to a relative risk, but it's not that easy and they didn't report doing so, which means the RRs are probably just ORspic.twitter.com/OB1QLZ7jJA
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
Health Nerd Retweeted Health Nerd
But all of this pales in comparison to the massive issue I skipped past earlier The study used longitudinal analysis (Cox/KM) to analyze cross-sectional datahttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1220462617472487425?s=20 …
Health Nerd added,
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
You'd think from the results that they had monitored children over time, recorded when they got a pet, and then followed up years later to find out if they got a diagnosis But remember - this is a CASE-CONTROL study
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
What the authors actually did is ASK PEOPLE WITH A CURRENT DIAGNOSIS when they remembered getting a dog as a child This is an inherently flawed approachpic.twitter.com/Kwo4i0guDD
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likesShow this thread -
Imagine asking someone who is currently going through an inpatient admission for acute psychosis when they remember getting a dog as a child, and using that as your exposure variable You see the problem
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
So this study didn't even really measure whether people who were diagnosed with schizophrenia were more likely to get dogs as children It measured who was more likely to REMEMBER getting a dog as a childpic.twitter.com/9wIOr6YxN0
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
And using the time that they remembered having a dog as the time-point for a longitudinal analysis is...problematic For one thing, you don't have accurate pet death data. You don't actually know how long these people were exposed to pets!
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
I'm going to stop here, because while there's more there really isn't much point in going through it allpic.twitter.com/9ZPrh2WLfs
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread
The fact that the analyses were the wrong way around, the exposure was a bit meaningless, and that the stats were probably misreported is probably enough And yet, the study was published, and got into the NYT *sigh*
-
-
TL:DR - dogs don't prevent schizophrenia - schizophrenia may prevent dogs - even then, probably not - this study is a mess
4 replies 3 retweets 31 likesShow this thread -
Health Nerd Retweeted Darren Dahly, PhD
If you want more info,
@statsepi and@ADAlthousePhD explain really well in this thread:https://twitter.com/statsepi/status/1220015078726098944?s=20 …Health Nerd added,
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow 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.