7/n If the authors did indeed do a randomized trial on participants who consented only to a cohort study, it is a decidedly non-trivial issue Where I live, there would be firings, lawsuits, and potentially criminal proceedings
-
-
18/n The timelines are really weird. The study is reported as going for 91 days (1st March-31st May) but the K-M curves have 100 days for the treatment group. Probably a minor error, but still strangepic.twitter.com/SH9NKeiVgG
Show this thread -
19/n The K-M curves are also just bizarre. My guess is that they've confused the outcome death with the inverse for the second graph, but even then they really make little sense
Show this thread -
20/n Also, the study ran until May 31st. This magnificent, amazing, literally earth-shattering result (60% REDUCTION IN MORTALITY) took...8 months? And no news, barely any press, for a treatment that could save 60% of people with COVID-19?pic.twitter.com/UEwDfFLqB3
Show this thread -
21/n The study also wasn't pre-registered, which is an issue considering it started on March 1st 2020. When was the treatment protocol (HCQ+azithro and dexamethasone) decided on?pic.twitter.com/sRvMutWu9k
Show this thread -
22/n Also, how in the world did one relatively modest-sized hospital have 8 fully-dedicated COVID-19 wards open in Barcelona, at a time when Spain itself only had a handful of COVID-19 cases? Any Barcelonian followers who can elaborate?
Show this thread -
23/n The same author group wrote another paper on the same patient population in January. Why was there no mention of this trial, or the MASSIVE mortality reduction anywhere? None of this is necessarily disqualifying, it's just really odd!pic.twitter.com/n6J8ihD9S3
Show this thread -
24/n I should specify that none of this makes the study totally sketchy, it's just all really weird and they are things that the authors should have explained in the paper
Show this thread -
25/n Overall, what we have is a study that, if run as specified, was a non-randomized prospective cohort study that gives us very little/no new information on vitamin D for COVID-19
Show this thread -
26/n This doesn't mean that you shouldn't take vitamin D, it's relatively low-cost and the harm is mostly to your wallet, but the jury is still out whether it will have any benefit at all to COVID-19
Show this thread -
27/n Update: the authors have confirmed that this was not a randomized trial on PubPeer. They are still using the word "random" in a very confusing way, but what is described here is not an RCT by any descriptionpic.twitter.com/epHN075OA7
Show this thread -
28/n And I wrote a piece about this trial and COVID-19 and vitamin D in generalhttps://gidmk.medium.com/vitamin-d-and-covid-19-an-update-59fb2f9cceb5 …
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.