8/n So as an observational trial, it was fine but not particularly conclusive But then you start looking at the numbers, and things get weird
-
Show this thread
-
9/n Firstly, the authors changed the sample between the preprint and publication. They report excluding 10% of their total sample because they'd received treatment before the study, which was not true in the preprintpic.twitter.com/kRDJCVq1Km
1 reply 2 retweets 18 likesShow this thread -
10/n Now, it's a bit weird to exclude people who've taken vitamin D supplements 3 months ago from this sample anyway - most of the people were deficient in vitamin D despite the supplements - but there's also more that's strange here
1 reply 1 retweet 15 likesShow this thread -
11/n For one thing, even though people have been EXCLUDED from the trial, the control group has...increased? 379 in the preprint, 391 in the publicationpic.twitter.com/HRwuUjeP5Z
1 reply 2 retweets 19 likesShow this thread -
12/n This is not explained - the only thing mentioned is that 92 people were excluded ~prior to the trial~ Were people moved from treatment to control? How does that happen in a prospective cohort study?pic.twitter.com/zhmbGrsZhq
1 reply 2 retweets 18 likesShow this thread -
13/n Table 1 also has some mistakes. For example, the obesity numbers and percentages have been copied in wrongpic.twitter.com/E04Q7JY91Q
1 reply 1 retweet 19 likesShow this thread -
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?
1 reply 1 retweet 19 likesShow 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
2 replies 1 retweet 21 likesShow 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)
1 reply 1 retweet 28 likesShow 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17/n As a randomized study that was retracted from SSRN after being rejected from the Lancet, it is pretty problematic that the preprint isn't mentioned at all in the published work, and that the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
5 replies 2 retweets 38 likesShow this thread
Health Nerd Retweeted Covid19Crusher
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 …
Health Nerd added,
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
So you're basically accusing these researchers (and the reviewers I guess) of fraud here. Have you written to them to answer your questions?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
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.