"Reassuring news" from a study that seems to make the same errors that other "reassuring" studies have made.
Not reassuring to those #LongCovidKids who've had #LongCovid for getting on for 2 years now
@LongCovidKids @jneill
Not reassuring to those #LongCovidKids who've had #LongCovid for getting on for 2 years now
@LongCovidKids @jneill
https://twitter.com/apsmunro/status/1487100181690658816
Ooooo. This study is riddled with misclassification bias. It has serious problems. They have done very little to exclude contamination of the controls, other than ask a question about whether kids had tested positive for covid.
Also, cases and controls received different questionnaires. Although demographic questions were "identical", the questions key to the study weren't. 🤷♀️
The abstract concentrates on risk differences - but with the potential contamination, this is nuts, particularly with the levels of symptom persistence reported by BOTH groups
And how they can say that cases resolve within 1-5 months in most cases, when 40% were reporting that they STILL had symptoms... 🤷♀️🤷♀️🤷♀️
The stats reporting is woeful. They say "most children recovered within a maximum of 1–5 months", but I think they mean a *median* of 4-5 months.
Oh rly? 
It's not a study of ">100k kids". The study only included 30k responses.
The study itself describes itself as a "cohort study".
It isn't.
It was a cross-sectional questionnaire.
How much wool is it trying to pull over how many eyes? 👀🐑
The study itself describes itself as a "cohort study".
It isn't.
It was a cross-sectional questionnaire.
How much wool is it trying to pull over how many eyes? 👀🐑
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
