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
2 replies 8 retweets 79 likesShow 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
3 replies 2 retweets 39 likesShow 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
1 reply 3 retweets 41 likesShow 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
1 reply 3 retweets 64 likesShow 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
2 replies 3 retweets 59 likesShow 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
3 replies 2 retweets 48 likesShow 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
2 replies 6 retweets 54 likesShow 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"
28 replies 6 retweets 122 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
One serious question. Is that the typical level of papers found in good journals? Coming from a much more rigid background, the only word that can describe my current state (not just for this paper): dumbfounded.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Typical? Probably not. Most papers in good journals are decent. But even the better journals let a few bad papers through, some of them really bad. Also, PLOS is a bit notorious for low quality studies, so not sure if I'd say it's a 'good' journal
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
It gets mentioned a lot, probably that is why I recognize it. But it's not like Lancet or a few other reputable ones arent making big mistakes.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @federicolois
Thoughts? I have been leaning on JAMA for information.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdNRE5eAyMI&t=107s …
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.