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
2 replies 5 retweets 90 likesShow 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
1 reply 4 retweets 84 likesShow 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?
6 replies 5 retweets 97 likesShow 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
1 reply 4 retweets 78 likesShow 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
2 replies 2 retweets 58 likesShow 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
2 replies 6 retweets 81 likesShow 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
10 replies 12 retweets 128 likesShow 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
2 replies 6 retweets 47 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
The authors use the term “intent to treat” analysis. What does ITT mean in the context of a cohort study? Who reviewed that manuscript?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
It means nothing and is incorrect. Even within the context of a cohort study, they excluded people who according to the preprint were treated so it's not ITT
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
Exactly. It’s meaningless. There’s a reason patients receive a treatment and it’s generally based on factors not captured (or incompletely captured) in an observational study. Poor quality studies provide low quality results. Unfortunately John Q Public doesn’t know this.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. 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.