I'm guessing those ones were much loved by Ioannidis (who co-authored one of them).
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
-
-
-
Indeed. His review included a majority (~30/42 studies) that sampled totally inappropriate populations, for example dialysis patients attending hemodialysis wards
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
A lot of those also came out right around reopening time. Disappointing, this pandemic honestly made me lose a bit of faith in the scientific community. The COVID-19 related studies just get more attention then other papers, is this low quality just a symptom of their visibility?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Random question (sorry if u and your co-author
@LeaMerone already thought of this): Given collinearity, would a diagram akin to those below help for showing multiple results for a region?: "collinearity" https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20089854v4.full.pdf … https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7289569/ … https://web.archive.org/web/20200717002901/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.30.20117531v1.full.pdf …pic.twitter.com/SJU0tFzUW8
-
We were thinking of adding something like that, but haven't gotten around to it. I did look at the percentage infected vs IFR, but haven't included it in the actual analysis yet
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.