At first glance, it appears to be a randomized controlled trial comparing calcifediol (vitamin D metabolite) to a control for severe COVID-19 with amazing outcomes (60% mortality reduction 👀)
3/n So, if you only glance at the abstract, you get the picture of an amazing positive result for vitamin D
But reading further, the problems start almost immediately
4/n Firstly, the study type. People are talking about this as "randomized" because the authors use that word in the abstract
But the authors didn't actually randomize patients!
5/n What the authors describe doing is, depending on how you read it, either a cluster-randomized trial with a sample size of 8, or a completely uncontrolled observational trial
I think it's almost certainly the latter
6/n Why? Well, a big clue is that this is what the authors got ethics approval to do. Another clue is that nowhere in the study is an actual method for randomization described!
7/n If the authors did indeed do a randomized trial on participants who consented only to a cohort study, it is a decidedly non-trivial issue
Where I live, there would be firings, lawsuits, and potentially criminal proceedings
8/n More likely, in my opinion, is that this is simply as the authors describe an observational cohort study of people in hospital who were either given calcifediol or not. They just use the word randomize incorrectly
9/n But even then, there are massive issues
For example, the PRIMARY ANALYSIS (60% mortality reduction) excludes ~20% of their total sample because of missing baseline data on vitamin D status
10/n And we get no information whatsoever on these missing people. Were they from the treated group? The control? Did they die, go to ICU etc? We have no idea!
11/n Another issue is that there were 8 presumably quite different COVID-19 wards, but the authors basically ignore these differences. There is no discussion of the purpose of the wards, and no correction for it in the statistical model
12/n Could the results be explained by different wards having different admissions protocols? Potentially, but we are given no information to make this assessment at all
13/n This is even more troubling when you consider that the baseline vitamin D levels are different in the treated and control patients (for whom there was vit D information)
So we know that the wards were different, but we don't know how much or why
14/n There's more. If this WAS indeed a cluster RCT (I'm skeptical), then the authors did the wrong analysis and the results are probably actually non-significant
18/n The timelines are really weird. The study is reported as going for 91 days (1st March-31st May) but the K-M curves have 100 days for the treatment group. Probably a minor error, but still strange
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
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?
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?
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?
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!
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
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
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 🤷♂️
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 description
A lot of people have been talking about it, so I thought I might do a bit of a thread on plausible reasons for the decline in COVID-19 cases in places where behaviour hasn't changed much recently 1/n
2/n The basic background is that there are some places across the world where there hasn't been a reportedly huge behavioural change since Nov/Dec last year where cases are dropping, sometimes quite quickly
So what's causing this?
3/n The explanation proposed by some has been that these places have reached "herd immunity", essentially a threshold where enough people have been infected and recovered such that the disease can no longer spread
This stuff is fascinating. Pay to low-income workers would increase by $509 billion under the bill, but the CBO has assumed that this is a fixed system and that higher wages -> higher prices -> less spending -> fewer jobs
Even more interesting is when you really dig into the weeds. For example, half of all those 'lost' jobs are estimated to be from teens working at the minimum wage
This is a problem that is quite easily solvable. In Australia we have age-adjusted minimum wages for precisely this reason
Always remember the Golden Rule of international comparisons: the most common explanation for a difference between two places is to do with DATA COLLECTION
For example, maternal mortality. Commonly used as a proxy for the wellbeing of a healthcare system
Also, notoriously complex to measure. Here's some examples from the UK, US, and Australia on the measurement
And those are just the top-line statements! The true divergence between the recording across healthcare systems can be massive, because everything from death certificates to doctors' training differs
This is a fascinating example of a complete misrepresentation of risk
- the risk for a 58 year old from COVID-19 is actually quite high (around 1 in 200 risk of death)
- the risk from being inside is complex, but likely minimal
Now, social isolation is harder to assess, and it obviously varies by person, but given the evidence we have on excess mortality in places with long lockdowns that haven't seen a massive increase, it's mathematically impossible for it to be higher than that from COVID-19
Moreover, going out and about during a pandemic has implications for people other than yourself, who may not be aware that you are so blasé about risks
Something that is important to note - despite the somewhat fractious debate about this bad paper, I have not nor will I ever say that closing schools is necessarily a good thing
The issue here is a terrible paper that is wrong in many ways. The scientific community should be shocked and appalled at the actions of journals and authors when mistakes are pointed out in their work
But removing this one impactful study from the literature won't shift the needle that much. The question about opening and closing schools during a pandemic remains, as ever, complex