Study: cross-sectional survey-based investigation of an online sample of healthcare workers shows some interesting associations
The headlines are wildly silly 1/n
2/n The study is here, and fun for a quick read. Basically, a group of researchers surveyed healthcare workers in July-Sept 2020 and asked them stuff about their diet and COVID nutrition.bmj.com/content/early/…
3/n This appears to be the 3rd or 4th study published from that survey. The authors basically found that, after controlling for a couple of confounders, there was an association between self-reported diet and risk of severe COVID-19
3.5/n (As a minor bugbear, the authors report this as a case-control study but that's not true because they didn't identify their participants based on COVID-19 status they just recruited healthcare workers to do their survey so it should be called a cross-sectional cohort)
4/n Anyway, regardless of the study type, it definitely doesn't support the headlines
Firstly, there's the population. This study was almost exclusively comprised of middle-aged, white doctors
5/n We can quibble about generalizability, but as a general rule if ~80% of your population is a single very specific demographic, it's hard to say much about populations based on that sample
6/n Secondly, there's the issue with unmeasured confounding. The study only asked people about a small number of covariates, but there are ~dozens~ of potentially important things that this could've missed
7/n Ignoring the obvious things like income, we might be worried that level of exposure to COVID-19 cases could cause people to have a higher risk of COVID-19, but that information wasn't included in the model
8/n There's also some indications in the study itself that the survey data (collected online) might not be very good as well
For example, of the 568 people who report having COVID-19, 33% say that they had a NEGATIVE COVID-19 test
8.5/n This may have been because the definition of a COVID-19 'case' used in the study is very broad. It appears that anyone with any symptoms consistent with COVID-19 would be a case here, regardless of testing
9/n When the researchers excluded these PCR-negative cases from their model, the statistically significant association between vegetarian diets largely disappeared 👀👀👀
10/n Anyway, the headlines saying that vegetarian diets reduce the risk of severe COVID-19 are rather ridiculous. This study just can't prove that
11/n A better headline might be "middle-aged white doctors who report eating vegetarian diets at slightly reduced risk of reporting COVID-19 symptoms, study suggests"
Not quite as impressive, perhaps, but a bit more accurate
12/n Oh, also, forgot to mention that the headline "73%" reduced risk is a relative risk, if you calculate the absolute risk difference for severe COVID-19 between the vegetarians and everyone else it works out to be about 4% so there's that too
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The final large published trial on ivermectin for COVID-19, PRINCIPLE, is now out. Main findings:
1. Clinically unimportant (~1-2day reduction) in time to resolution of symptoms. 2. No benefit for hospitalization/death.
Now, you may be asking "why does anyone care at all any more about ivermectin for COVID?" to which I would respond "yes"
We already knew pretty much everything this study shows. That being said, always good to have more data!
The study is here:
For me, the main finding is pretty simple - ivermectin didn't impact the likelihood of people going to hospital or dying from COVID-19. This has now been shown in every high-quality study out there.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38431155/
What's particularly interesting is a finding that the authors don't really discuss in their conclusion. These results appear to show that gender affirming care is associated with a reduction in suicide risk 1/n
2/n The paper is a retrospective cohort study that compares young adults and some teens who were referred for gender related services in Finland with a cohort that was matched using age and sex. The median age in the study was 19, so the majority of the population are adults.
3/n The study is very limited. The authors had access to the Finnish registries which include a wide range of data, but chose to only correct their cohorts for age, sex, and number of psychiatric appointments prior to their inclusion in the cohort.
These headlines have to be some of the most ridiculous I've seen in a while
The study tested 18 different PFAS in a tiny sample of 176 people. Of those, one had a barely significant association with thyroid cancer
This is genuinely just not news at all
Here's the study. I'm somewhat surprised it even got published if I'm honest. A tiny case-control study, they looked at 88 people with thyroid cancer and 88 controls thelancet.com/journals/ebiom…
Here are the main results. There was a single measured PFAS which had a 'significant' association with the cancer, the others just look a bit like noise to me
A new study has gone viral for purportedly showing that running therapy had similar efficacy to medication for depression
Which is weird, because a) it's not a very good study and b) seems not to show that at all 1/n
2/n The study is here. The authors describe it as a "partially randomized patient preference design", which is a wildly misleading term. In practice, this is simply a cohort study, where ~90% of the patients self-selected into their preferred treatment sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
3/n This is a big problem, because it means that there are likely confounding factors between the two groups (i.e. who is likely to choose running therapy over meds?). Instead of a useful, randomized trial, this is a very small (n=141) non-randomized paper
The study showed that COVID-19 had, if anything, very few long-term issues for children! As a new father, I find this data very reassuring regarding #LongCovid in kids 1/n
2/n The study is here, it's a retrospective cohort comparing children aged 0-14 who had COVID-19 to a matched control using a database of primary care visits in Italy onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ap…
3/ The authors found that there was an increased risk of a range of diagnoses for the kids with COVID-19 after their acute disease, including things like runny noses, anxiety/depression, diarrhoea, etc
This study has recently gone viral, with people saying that it shows that nearly 20% of highly vaccinated people get Long COVID
I don't think it's reasonable to draw these conclusions based on this research. Let's talk about bias 1/n
2/n The study is here. It is a survey of people who tested positive to COVID-19 in Western Australia from July-Aug 2022 medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
3/n This immediately gives us our first source of bias
We KNOW that most cases of COVID-19 were missed at this point in the pandemic, so we're only getting the sample of those people who were sick enough to go and get tested