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
-
Show 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*
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
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 -
Once in awhile, you see a study where the analysis is SO FAR OFF from what they actually said, you can’t help but wonder ... I’m gonna get too sad if I finish that sentence.
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes
My guess is that someone went to a talk on time series analysis methods and got really excited
-
-
Yeah, definitely possible. I’ve seen people halfheartedly “learn” a new method and then go about in search of a problem where they can apply that method (the old “solution in search of a problem” problem)
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.