13/n Moreover, a full 20% of the sample was excluded because they were not from randomized floors, which is bizarre. How were they recruited, randomized, and apparently treated if they were not on randomized floors?pic.twitter.com/9okIdHU8zy
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
24/n The primary outcome was also switched, with a bunch of other odd inconsistencies in the research that make it a bit hard to know if the conclusions hold water
25/n To their credit, the authors talk about some of these things in the limitations section of the study, but not all of them and I'm not sure they really explain why these are not issuespic.twitter.com/KaUEJBj2ki
26/n Anyway, I'm not sure I would rely on this study as evidence for much, despite the large size
27/n Apologies, one of the above tweets is wrong. The authors did indeed take into account the clustering in their statistical analysishttps://twitter.com/jt_kerwin/status/1386920483916947464?s=20 …
28/n The more I read this paper, the weirder it sounds. So they randomized ineligible people (how?) from two floors that were not clustered, and then assigned them to vitamin C if the other medications were contraindicated?https://twitter.com/salonium/status/1386922872317247489?s=20 …
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.