I thought I'd look at this paper in a little bit more detail because, well, there are some pretty big issues Let's do some peer-review on twitter!https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1303539430024568832 …
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
However, it doesn't take long to see some major caveats to this research Firstly, it was not blinded. Treating clinicians - who were the ones in charge of sending a patient to ICU - knew who was getting the treatment and who wasn't
There was also no placebo control, again introducing a potential source of bias into the arrangement On top of this, the sample was very small (n=76)
Now, all of this is fine, because you see this was a PILOT trial The actual big research project is ongoing, and will involve >10x as many people!pic.twitter.com/cHPCo0z4P1
But there are some issues in the study that don't have anything to do with the pilot nature For example, this flow diagrampic.twitter.com/J3c0GQSSQC
This diagram implies that of the patients who were screened for the study (PCR+, pneumonia on radiograph, clinical infection) 100% were enrolled 100% of those patients were randomized 100% took the treatment as assigned 100% were followed up until the end of the study
Now, I don't know if that is entirely unheard of, but thus far I have never seen such perfect numbers. Even other in-hospital trials of drugs for COVID-19 have a handful of patients drop out (or at least 1 patient screened who was not eligible!)
Also, the control group had higher levels of hypertension and diabetes compared to the intervention group. This is acknowledged by the authors as a limitation, and is definitely not ideal when making conclusions based on the resultspic.twitter.com/XM3KjauodY
It is entirely possible - perhaps even likely - that one of these potential sources of bias influenced the eventual results. A study like this would be rated as at a "very high" risk of bias in most formal assessments
I think most scientists would just read this as a tiny pilot study, and await better data That's certainly my opinion - there are too many potential sources of bias here to make any solid conclusions
Unfortunately, it is the age of COVID-19, so this study has instead gone viral on social media and is being used to recommend that people take vitamin D supplements Such is the way of 2020
I should also mention that this is not in any way an indictment of the study's authors. This was clearly meant to be a pilot study, and should be read as such It is just a shame that people have instead sensationalized the research
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.