11/n Another issue is that there were 8 presumably quite different COVID-19 wards, but the authors basically ignore these differences. There is no discussion of the purpose of the wards, and no correction for it in the statistical model
-
-
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.