Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • About

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
GidMK's profile
Health Nerd
Health Nerd
Health Nerd
Verified account
@GidMK

Tweets

Health NerdVerified account

@GidMK

Epidemiologist. Writer (Guardian, Observer etc). "Well known research trouble-maker". PhDing at @UoW Host of @senscipod Email gidmk.healthnerd@gmail.com he/him

Sydney, New South Wales
theguardian.com/profile/gideon…
Joined November 2015

Tweets

  • © 2021 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

    A systematic review/meta-analysis of honey vs other cough/cold remedies came out yesterday in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine I think this is worth a quick peer review on twitter 1/npic.twitter.com/XXE2dkbMS9

    6:56 PM - 19 Aug 2020
    • 405 Retweets
    • 1,091 Likes
    • Dennis Natxo Paula Paajanen Banana Blues Emergency&BushfireKits Maz Tomecki Emma Markx maræo ☼ Eu Fernández
    40 replies 405 retweets 1,091 likes
      1. New conversation
      2. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        2/n The review is here:https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2020/07/28/bmjebm-2020-111336 …

        2 replies 15 retweets 49 likes
        Show this thread
      3. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        3/n Basically, the authors searched the literature for all the studies looking at honey being used to treat URTIs (cough), and aggregated them together into one model. They found that honey works better than usual care! Amazing right?pic.twitter.com/BvZBO8u9Yu

        2 replies 6 retweets 44 likes
        Show this thread
      4. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        3.5/n (N.B. URTI = Upper Respiratory Tract Infection)

        1 reply 1 retweet 21 likes
        Show this thread
      5. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        4/n And if you read the methods section of this review, it's fairly reasonable. Good exclusion criteria, risk of bias assessment, it ticks all the boxes! But as ever, the devil is in the detailspic.twitter.com/qFUyVGbAFV

        1 reply 4 retweets 43 likes
        Show this thread
      6. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        5/n At first glance, the results look rosy. Most studies were assessed as of reasonable quality, and the overall benefits seem accurate if very weak due to the low overall sample sizepic.twitter.com/ELAhFavao2

        1 reply 3 retweets 34 likes
        Show this thread
      7. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        6/n The thing about systematic reviews/meta-analyses is that the included studies are EVERYTHING As they say, garbage in = garbage out Let's take 2 of these studies as an examplepic.twitter.com/aAROQ7bphu

        1 reply 7 retweets 59 likes
        Show this thread
      8. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        7/n These studies are both by the same author group, published close together, and both report finding that honey works better than the alternative to treat cough over 1 weekpic.twitter.com/Lyv7cqUUjI

        1 reply 3 retweets 34 likes
        Show this thread
      9. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        8/n But it doesn't take long to find issues. There are large tracts of text that are identical between the studies. There are numerical errors in the tables and GRIM inconsistencies ping @sTeamTraen @MicrobiomDigest (rounding done wrong and incorrect totals).pic.twitter.com/oUZMb3RXqB

        1 reply 5 retweets 75 likes
        Show this thread
      10. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        9/n Moreover, the risk of bias assessment in the systematic review is, as far as I can tell, incorrect. The authors of these studies do not report, for example, how the randomization procedure was generatedpic.twitter.com/B4C8gf8D3d

        1 reply 1 retweet 42 likes
        Show this thread
      11. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        10/n They also don't describe blinding of clinical staff, and actually from reading I'm fairly sure the doctors could tell which medication the patients were taking

        2 replies 0 retweets 42 likes
        Show this thread
      12. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        11/n Another issue for the SR/MA is that the data extraction from one of these studies is just wrong Here, honey has a mean reduction of 2.4 in cough frequency compared to 1.2 for 'usual care'pic.twitter.com/ucdT2kwMzO

        1 reply 0 retweets 33 likes
        Show this thread
      13. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        12/n Now, firstly, that's the reduction not for "honey" but for "honey + coffee", and it's being compared to a control of "coffee alone" which is definitely not what this analysis is looking atpic.twitter.com/tLFg7h58Dn

        1 reply 0 retweets 44 likes
        Show this thread
      14. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        13/n But further to this, the number given in the meta-analysis of -2.4 is wrong, as it should be 3.0-0.4 = -2.6 So it's wrong in two ways, both of them very bad for this analysis

        1 reply 0 retweets 28 likes
        Show this thread
      15. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        14/n I should also mention, both of these studies were rated as at low/moderate risk of bias in the systematic review. Have a look yourself and see if you think that this is reasonable: https://www.sid.ir/en/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=196449 … https://www.nature.com/articles/pcrj201372#Sec9 …pic.twitter.com/UnJ3TNif3y

        1 reply 0 retweets 32 likes
        Show this thread
      16. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        15/n I haven't gone through every study yet, but every one that I have is similarly worrying. I can't actually find a study that I'm not worried about in this analysis

        1 reply 0 retweets 45 likes
        Show this thread
      17. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        16/n If I go through the studies, I really can't find any that I would rate as a "low" risk of bias. Most of them are "high", some of them are really worryingly bad

        1 reply 0 retweets 32 likes
        Show this thread
      18. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        17/n Given this, I'm not sure the conclusions of the review make much sense at all. How can you interpret studies of this quality as moderate/strong evidence???pic.twitter.com/mvlxiUAvJX

        3 replies 1 retweet 45 likes
        Show this thread
      19. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        18/n I'm also worried about the heterogeneity of the 'usual care' groups across studies. Some of the usual care: - coffee - paracetamol - syrup - diphenhydramine - placebo - prednisolone These are very much not the same!

        4 replies 4 retweets 81 likes
        Show this thread
      20. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        19/n That's a big issue because you can't really combine the effect of coffee with diphenhydramine and expect it to make sense, but that's what the authors did

        2 replies 2 retweets 41 likes
        Show this thread
      21. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        20/n Ultimately, I think the only real conclusion you can draw here is that we have very little idea whether honey reduces symptoms for URTI/cough, and that the research is quite problematic

        1 reply 9 retweets 68 likes
        Show this thread
      22. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        21/n Not something that'll make headlines, perhaps, but sadly that's often how these things go

        1 reply 0 retweets 38 likes
        Show this thread
      23. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        22/n N.B. this study has already hit ~800 on Altmetric, been covered internationally, and made huge newspic.twitter.com/bj72yqShfA

        3 replies 0 retweets 38 likes
        Show this thread
      24. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        23/n Something else I didn't mention. Every study that I've looked at so far used a per-protocol analysis, which is a huge and worrying issue All of these should be at a high risk of attrition bias, yet none were rated as such. Most of them were green (low risk)pic.twitter.com/Y6sXlnkJHe

        2 replies 1 retweet 37 likes
        Show this thread
      25. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        24/n I've gotta say, for anyone teaching students about how finicky bias can be in systematic reviews, this is a beautiful example of getting it wrong

        4 replies 10 retweets 81 likes
        Show this thread
      26. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        25/n Somehow there are more issues here. This study was included in the risk of bias, but even though it assessed honey vs placebo/salbutamonl (and found no effect) it is not in any of the meta-analyses Very weirdpic.twitter.com/8AaMA85ERm

        1 reply 1 retweet 34 likes
        Show this thread
      27. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        26/n This is even weirder when you consider that the authors report excluding a study for not providing data So they exclude one study and report it, but another just...disappears? So strangepic.twitter.com/oyrp57yP1Y

        2 replies 0 retweets 26 likes
        Show this thread
      28. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        27/n Another included study using a per-protocol analysis. This was at least rated correctly as at a high risk of biaspic.twitter.com/t2mRMIq539

        1 reply 0 retweets 20 likes
        Show this thread
      29. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        28/n Another one. This study was rated at low risk of bias for most domains. Here's how they described their randomization and allocation concealment. What do you think?pic.twitter.com/1NM606xcRg

        1 reply 1 retweet 26 likes
        Show this thread
      30. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 Aug 2020

        29/n I'll give you a head-start - if they literally don't report ~how~ patients were randomized, by definition this should be unclear or high risk of bias for the domain of random sequence generation

        12 replies 2 retweets 65 likes
        Show this thread
      31. End of 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.

      Promoted Tweet

      false

      • © 2021 Twitter
      • About
      • Help Center
      • Terms
      • Privacy policy
      • Cookies
      • Ads info