Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Jon Deeks FMedSci Profile picture
@deeksj
Apr 21, 2020 • 3 tweets • 2 min read • Read on X
1/3 The UK Oxford COVID-19 serology study now available here doi.org/10.1101/2020.0… - 9 serology tests assessed in 31-40 COVID-19 patients and 60-142 controls. Well done study to the research team BUT (sorry ... ) ... #COVIDー19 #nihr @NDMOxford
2/3 ... the authors can’t tell us what the 9 tests were as manufacturers insisted on anonymity. How should we interpret the results? What about the other 100+ tests?

Study was funded by NIHR, MRC and UK Government.

When are such corporate anonymity restrictions unethical?
3/3 Anonymity agreements can only create publication bias, and reduce the value of the study.

The COVID-19 epidemic must be the time to stop tolerating such corporate protectionism. Lives are at stake.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Jon Deeks FMedSci

Jon Deeks FMedSci Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @deeksj

Jon Deeks FMedSci Profile picture
Jul 23, 2021
Daily Testing in school study report is out but presentation by BBC here is SPIN SPIN SPIN

The trial failed to show convincing reductions in school absence, and could not rule out large increases in Covid transmission. Sensitivity of the test was 53%.

bbc.co.uk/news/health-57…
The preprint for this study is here. Not yet peer reviewed.

modmedmicro.nsms.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/upl…
BBC says that reduced absence by 33%, but the ITT analysis in the text says 20% reduction with 95% confidence interval from 46% reduction to a 19% increases (p=0.27). So no convincing evidence of a reduction.
Read 12 tweets
Jon Deeks FMedSci Profile picture
Jul 18, 2021
SO what’s this POSITIVE news about medical tests?

Said it would be Monday, but actually the news broke this afternoon. So an early release from my tease …

Thanks for sharing your hopes about what it might be … I enjoyed many of them … but none were that close.

1/10
For me, positive news would be knowing

1) High quality tests are developed using the best expertise from industry and universities

2)Tests are evaluated in strong robust studies to work out whether they work in the real world for the purposes to which they are put

2/10
3) Study findings report the truth about whether they do more good than harm, and not spun for profit, popularity or reputation

4) Tests are developed to meet the greatest public health needs

5) Tests are affordable and available in the populations that need them most

3/10
Read 11 tweets
Jon Deeks FMedSci Profile picture
Jul 15, 2021
This new study suggests LFTs in primary care have sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 89%, but it is FLAWED.

These results are misleading because of PARTIAL VERIFICATION BIAS

A quick lesson ….

1/9
 sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
Participants were first tested with LFTs – 810 positive and 1736 negative. The investigators choose to test 217 of the 1736 negatives with PCR – that’s 1 in 8. This wasn’t a random sample as they were influenced by clinical characteristics as well as the test result.

2/9
The sensitivity / specificity calculation is based on all LFT+ves and 12.5% of LFT-ves as follows:

3/9
Read 9 tweets
Jon Deeks FMedSci Profile picture
Jul 7, 2021
Even more data on LFTs out today.

@dhscgovuk released report of studies of Innova and Orient Gene, and their interpretation of findings.

Includes unpublished studies

BUT Clear evidence of post hoc interpretation of results based on naïve definition of infectiousness.

1/10
Long link is here:

gov.uk/government/pub…

2/10
@dhscgov define

HIGH viral load as >1,000,000 RNA/ml and appear to consider that these are the only cases which matter.

10,000 to 1,000,000 is LOW (not moderate)

<10,000 MINIMAL.

This is despite acknowledging there is no cut-off that categorises people as infectious

3/10
Read 11 tweets
Jon Deeks FMedSci Profile picture
Jun 22, 2021
Results from the LIVERPOOL EVENT PILOTS have been published on line and in the media. Somehow I missed these coming out. cultureliverpool.co.uk/event-research…

No official report from @dhscgov as per normal.
Seems important evidence is being delayed once again.

1/7
The bottom line is that the events were safe.

Kudos to Liverpool PH Team.

But detail is interesting to see why they were safe.

2/7
First the infection rate in Liverpool was very low when the events were held

Negative LFTs required for entry. 5/13263 positive and excluded. Same-day PCR found 4 people positive who had attended with false negative LFTs. So 5/9 were picked up by LFT – 44% missed.

3/7
Read 7 tweets
Jon Deeks FMedSci Profile picture
Jun 17, 2021
What do we known about ORIENT GENE used in the Daily Contact Testing Trial by the @educationgovuk and @DHSCgovuk?

There have been claims that this test is as good as others and has been reviewed by @MHRAgovuk for use in assisted testing. This is not right

1/10
The process does not make sense.

The MHRA never review products for assisted testing as they are professional use tests, which go through the self-certification process to get a CE-IVD mark.
MHRA doesn't go near this process.

2/n
In fact ORIENT GENE is not even on the MHRA register of products which is a requirement. You can check here - both for the product and manufacturer (sorry for the messy link).

3/n
aic.mhra.gov.uk/era/pdr.nsf/na…
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(