3/n First off, the published version doesn't mention that this study was preprinted then retracted as far as I can tell That's, um, not great. Less than ideal
-
-
14/n The figures in Table 1 are also just a bit...odd? 20% diabetes, 30% dyslipidemia, but only 9% of people with BMI>30? Are those obesity values just an error perhaps?
Show this thread -
15/n There are also tons of strange small differences between the preprint and the published study. 80/379 died in the control group in the preprint, but 82/391 died in the publication None of this is explained
Show this thread -
16/n At this point I just honestly don't know what to make of the research. As an observational study, it's not very meaningful (if nothing else, there's no control for or discussion of how patients were allocated to the wards)
Show this thread -
17/n As a randomized study that was retracted from SSRN after being rejected from the Lancet, it is pretty problematic that the preprint isn't mentioned at all in the published work, and that the differences aren't really explained
Show this thread -
18/n If anyone was wondering, this study is being touted as proof that vitamin D is a miracle cure for COVID-19 despite the innumerable weaknesses, because of course it is!https://twitter.com/Covid19Crusher/status/1402320259626016772?s=20 …
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.