There are literally hundreds of reasons that some people might have gotten plasma early rather than late, in particular that they were less sick so they could tolerate the treatment This makes the study a bit worthless in terms of causal interpretation
-
Show this thread
-
Thing is, the numbers are something of an indictment in and of themselves With 35,000 people to treat, it would be TRIVIAL to randomize 10% and do a proper trial
2 replies 2 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
This study could've paved the way for a successful treatment. Instead, we are now months into a pandemic, with billions spent on these patients, and still have no idea if what Mayo did was worthwhile or a waste of time
1 reply 3 retweets 20 likesShow this thread -
Worse, it's entirely possible that the treatment is harmful, but without an appropriate control group we can only hope that it isn't Very, very depressing
3 replies 1 retweet 25 likesShow this thread -
Also worth noting that for the main finding - i.e. people getting plasma early died less than those who got it late - THEY DIDN'T EVEN ADJUST FOR AGE AND SEX That's just...woeful. Maybe people who get plasma later are just older???
1 reply 1 retweet 24 likesShow this thread -
I mean, it's an observational study where they're comparing two groups, getting headlines across the world, but they haven't adjusted that estimate for ANYTHING including things that might make a huge difference
1 reply 0 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
Have to say, the more I think about it the worse this study looks All these authors and no one thought to adjust for age? Or gender? Or one of the many biases that are likely to be present here?pic.twitter.com/z0UKMVKqTb
4 replies 2 retweets 28 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
I'm not for one moment suggesting I agree with these authors' conclusions, & I'm not saying it's a good study... but .....pic.twitter.com/SmseuiSK5O
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hildabast
Yes. But the main finding presented in the news and in interviews appears not to have been adjusted for - they used the bootstrapping for the concentration of antibodies but I cannot see the same methodology used for the 3 vs >=4 days
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
But that's not what the tweet I'm challenging said: "All these authors and no one thought to adjust for age? Or gender? Or one of the many biases that are likely to be present here?"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
But if the analysis is pivotal to their paper, surely it applies? Perhaps I was a bit overdone, but it's just baffling to me and very frustrating to see!
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
A couple of those tweets look to me like you're trying to paint the authors as incompetent when the paper makes it perfectly clear they in fact did what you're accusing them of not doing. I'm no fan of what they've done, but they don't deserve that insult.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hildabast
I'm not trying to paint them as incompetent. I just can't see how that could happen, and then be presented worldwide as fact and truth
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
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.