Fortunately, the authors did this analysis as well!
You can find it in table 4 of the supplementary materials
What do we see?
-
-
Anyway, the paper is abhorrent regardless, but I think it also shows some worrying signs of being constructed after the fact from a dataset of a trial with different aims
Show this thread -
Oh, another issue - the paper makes an inherently misleading claim about causality. The primary findings were of a subgroup analysis of non-randomized groups (lean vs obese) and so it's not clear whether this was causal anyway
Show this thread -
Because the randomization was simply fasted vs breakfast, the causal attribution for this study should be comparing those two groups, not the subgroups of obese vs lean
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.