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
-
Show this thread
-
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?
3 replies 10 retweets 104 likesShow this thread -
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
2 replies 17 retweets 170 likesShow this thread -
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
1 reply 6 retweets 80 likesShow this thread -
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
1 reply 14 retweets 181 likesShow this thread -
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
1 reply 6 retweets 146 likesShow this thread -
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
13 replies 6 retweets 133 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
You are overlooking the fact that the CT was changed after he cultured the virus and determined that no live virus could be find over 30 cycles. Your point doesn't invalidate the result at all. Significant differences could also be found by comparing daily viral loads as well.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GabinJean3
That is immaterial to the issue at hand, which is to do with post-hoc alterations to study protocols. The proper analysis would be including all patients randomised and treated, this is known as the "intention to treat" method of analysis
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Don't you think there is a more important point to discuss, ie the results of this study for example?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
If you run the pre registered analysis the results appear to be null, which means that this question is fundamental to whether this study shows a benefit or no benefit for ivm
-
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.