/1 Critically reading a paper
REMOTE/IN SCHOOL & KIDS BEHAVIOUR
*******
It took me ~40 (!!!) tweets to go through a paper critically and explain it and its strengths & limitations. This is how much work reading evidence is. Read (if you dare).
/2 But more importantly, look how much effort I put into it. I really wanted to show you what is required to read, integrate, extract, and analyze primary research.
/3 40 tweets was hard. I could have written MUCH more, and I did much more (like counting unlabelled n's, estimating cohen's d which is VERY challenging for in-person effects, etc)
/4 Critically reading a paper means the following:
*finding strengths (don't be a hater, research is hard work!)
*finding weaknesses (easiest thing to do is criticize someone elses work)
* understanding context
* asking yourself and the paper lots of questions (not literally!)
/5 I personally have major issues with how @JAMA_current and the authors chose to frame/title this paper, given the conclusion and limitations, but at the same time, it provides data to us that is important. I believe its title and graph will be shared many times incorrectly.
/6 To me, that's just bad and naïve science communication despite the article itself being pretty good science.
That being said, it's a good paper! I enjoyed it. I'm glad @JAMA_current published it. It adds to our body of knowledge.
/7 The total time it took me to read the paper, supplement, do the calculations, think about strengths and weaknesses, and think about what it meant to our current state of knowledge: about 4 hours.
And I am an expert in children's mental health and epidemiology.
/8 I don't mean to say that "so only I can do it," I mean to say... its HARD WORK to critically and carefully read a paper to understand it. On top of HARD WORK it takes KNOWLEDGE of the current state.
It is easy, simplistic work to skim an abstract or look at a graph.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
While pediatric societies & "hospital organizations" did "science by press release," breathlessly discussing a correlation on a parent survey or releasing a statement about 1 month of admissions in May 2021, I knew we would get REAL DATA.
/2 This day has arrived. We have the incredible article by Ray et al, showing that during the first 15 months of the pandemic, youth ER presentations of self harm, overdose, and hospital admissions of both decreased by ~18% in Ontario.
/3 There is OTHER data out of Ontario showing that acute mental health ER and admission levels DID NOT INCREASE during the first 12 months of the pandemic. (broken down by age group)
My anger is so high. all I wanted when @CHEO and @SickKidsNews announced these breathless claims about skyrocketing admissions and self harm was DATA RELEASES.
Now, a large study shows that ON 14-24 admissions for self harm, OD, and deaths for same decreased by 20% to mid '21.
Among adolescents and young adults, the initial 15-month period of the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a relative decline in hospital care for self-harm or overdose.
After 4M person-years of follow-up, 6224 14-24 experienced self-harm/ overdose during the pandemic (39.7 per 10 000 person-years) vs 12 970 (51.0 per 10 000 person-years) prepandemic, with an HR of 0.78 (95% CI 0.75-0.80)
1/ THREAD: Actual data (not claims):
Presentations of pediatric suicide attempts during the pandemic
A study out of Paris looking at suicide attempts in kids <16y, presenting to the Robert Debré. It has unsurprising (to me) results, but demonstrates some interesting things.
2/ Some context from a child emergency expert:
Children often present with suicide attempts when they are under duress. A surprising number of kids (5-8% per year) attempt suicide (by report), fortunately a much smaller fraction of kids (<0.01%) die of suicide.
3/ I couldn't find French data, but its neighbour Germany has an article out that shows the rate of suicide attempts in youth at 6.7% (no migration background) or 10% (with migration background).
THREAD: A look at a new study looking at school setting, pandemic, and behaviours in kids.
@JAMA_current article using a cohort design to look at the effects of the pandemic over time. They have an interesting statistical manipulation which I'll describe in a moment!
/1
Now very importantly, the authors acknowledge that the statistical manipulation wasnt enough! It falls short in a number of ways, so they caution very strongly against interpreting this as "causal evidence"
Let's look at what it shows and what its limitations are.
/2
First: what is this?
It is an ongoing survey that is being done of early learning that's been going since 2017. During the 2020-2021 school year, for kids 6-8, 405 parents were surveyed in 4 monthly surveys.
/3
Hey, is your BMI 20? congratulations. You have the same risk of dying as someone with a BMI of 35. BMI is a very imperfect, unscientific, pseudoscientific measure created by a Belgian astronomer. Pretty much everything most doctors know about BMI is wrong.
/1
BMI mortality depends very much on the thing that you are considering.
Many causes of death are associated with lower BMIs many with higher BMIs
/2
The use of archaic BMI's as a measure of health is unscientific and contributes to fatphobia, discrimination, and leads to people who should seek health care to avoiding health care.
/3