4/n The authors report a marginally significant benefit at various days using an uncorrected logistic regression, and from this the massive attention sprangpic.twitter.com/5xk5vLDkrH
Epidemiologist. Writer (Guardian, Observer etc). "Well known research trouble-maker". PhDing at @UoW Host of @senscipod Email gidmk.healthnerd@gmail.com he/him
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
Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more
Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more
By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.
| Country | Code | For customers of |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 40404 | (any) |
| Canada | 21212 | (any) |
| United Kingdom | 86444 | Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2 |
| Brazil | 40404 | Nextel, TIM |
| Haiti | 40404 | Digicel, Voila |
| Ireland | 51210 | Vodafone, O2 |
| India | 53000 | Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance |
| Indonesia | 89887 | AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata |
| Italy | 4880804 | Wind |
| 3424486444 | Vodafone | |
| » See SMS short codes for other countries | ||
This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.
Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
4/n The authors report a marginally significant benefit at various days using an uncorrected logistic regression, and from this the massive attention sprangpic.twitter.com/5xk5vLDkrH
5/n One of the first things I do when I read randomized trials like this is look at their pre-registration. This is basically what the authors SAID they would do registered BEFORE they did it Here's the pre-reg for this trial:https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04429711?term=NCT04429711&draw=2&rank=1 …
6/n Immediately on looking at the pre-registration, there is a HUGE discrepancy with the published results Here's what the authors pre-registered as their exclusion and the flow chart from the study. Notice the difference?pic.twitter.com/eMFPtwG9Y6
7/n It appears that the authors have added an extra exclusion criteria that is applied AFTER randomization and treatment. This is "tested Ct>35" in the first two testspic.twitter.com/V5ZfCZWhv7
8/n Based on the protocol, that implies the sequence of events went like this: 1. patient tests positive, randomized and started treatment 2. Day 2, patient tests Ct>35 3. Day 4, patient tests Ct>35
9/n This is an issue for two reasons - firstly, it's not what the authors said they'd do. Secondly, it means that they are excluding people WHO MEET THEIR PRIMARY OUTCOME (i.e. Ct>30) after randomization and treatment has started
10/n This makes absolutely no sense to me. These people were randomized and treated, and they met the inclusion criteria pre-registered by the authors. Why were they excluded?
11/n If you add these people back in, the results of the study entirely lose their significance At day 10, this would be 87% of the ivm and 77% of the control reaching the primary endpoint, p=0.16pic.twitter.com/UjgaGpjYFw
12/n In addition, the authors pre-registered 3 primary outcomes. I can only see one (viral clearance) properly assessed in the paper (shedding is somewhat assessed, but it looks like they didn't get enough samples to statistically analyse this)pic.twitter.com/wv4hnBhNNE
13/n Anyway, the main issue is that, if you use the pre-registered protocol, the study appears to have null results
And yet, reported as positive to massive worldwide acclaim 
14/n This has nothing to do with fraud, takes literally minutes to check, and I encourage everyone to do so. Please let me know if I've made an error somewhere
15/n Also, to be clear - I'm not accusing the authors of any research misconduct, this is just very basic due diligence that everyone should do for any trial that they read
16/n Also worth noting that it is entirely possible the study still has some positive results when you add these patients back in - the point is their primary outcome, which is the main thing reported, seems to change substantially when these people are included!
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.