2/n The study is here if you want to read it - a very simple retrospective epidemiological paper:https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239799 …
-
-
Show this thread
-
3/n Basically, the authors took a sample of people who'd been hospitalized with COVID-19, and split them up into 2 groups - normal vs low vitamin D (or, more technically, "sufficient" vs "insufficient")
Show this thread -
4/n They found that those with low vit D had a higher risk of some adverse outcomes, in particular that people >40 years with low vit D died more often than people >40 years with normal vit Dpic.twitter.com/Fb7NIPkpBd
Show this thread -
5/n Sounds good right? Well, some issues Firstly, sample size: it was VERY SMALLpic.twitter.com/kq4XeuicBv
Show this thread -
6/n The study used a dataset with 611 patients, but only 235 of them had information on their vitamin D status, so the final sample for the study was only 235pic.twitter.com/I4R7BRIpyt
Show this thread -
7/n For that main, headline finding - that vit D reduces the risk of death - the authors were looking at a subset of this number (about 150 people) That's not a lot!
Show this thread -
8/n It's also very odd when you actually look at the results, because the findings seem...wildly unimpressive This graph, for example, comparing vit D levels with risk of death. It's about as null a finding as you can get at first glancepic.twitter.com/fL7Ap83XgU
Show this thread -
9/n If we look just at the patients who the authors found a significant relationship for - those over 40 - you can kind of see a relationship but it's VERY slimpic.twitter.com/pOAWPvWpex
Show this thread -
10/n And when you look at all of the other outcomes the authors analyzed, a similar pattern emerges Low vit D increased the risk of hypoxia, but not shortness of breath. It DECREASED (not significantly) the risk of chest painpic.twitter.com/ZTeL7a5tGC
Show this thread -
11/n You could write this study up as demonstrating that there was no correlation between vit D and most COVID-19 outcomes, and therefore we still don't know if it does anything for the disease
Show this thread -
12/n Instead, the authors use the pretty tenuous observational link between low vit D in people over 40 and death to posit that supplementation should be used for all patients which isn't really supported by their resultspic.twitter.com/y5tkjFnXOZ
Show this thread -
13/n While I could go into the results a bit more - the statistical analysis is a little bit meaningless, the confounding factors not really even considered - but honestly there's not really much point I think
Show this thread -
14/n The results show a vague correlation between vit D and some outcomes, with a smattering of statistical significance if you run the analyses in certain ways Not much that you can take away from that, I think
Show this thread -
15/n If nothing else, the small sample size makes it hard to conclude anything from these results other than "we need BETTER research"
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.