4 ms·

This is a great comment thanks. Title of the paper could (with a tongue firmly in cheek) be called, "Weak evidence for effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine but

This is a great comment thanks. Title of the paper could (with a tongue firmly in cheek) be called, "Weak evidence for effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine but our sample was likely too small for it to pass a T-test"

briefcomment 7y ago
Wow, I would love titles like this.
sadfklsjlkjwt 7y ago
Or better "We did a study with too few examples and did not get meaningful data"
A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
I agree. I wonder if we could try to move click-baity articles under truth in advertising legislation of some sort. edit: clarified it a little
marcosdumay 7y ago
This is the kind of study where it would be beneficial for it to be ignore. The correct headline is no headline at all.
- emn13 7y ago
  Well, given the time constraints, and the fact that the previous paper was had a much weaker setup yet claimed efficacy, I think this paper is a good idea. Incidentally, it's not the only such paper; a chinese analysis from the early days came to a comparable conclusion. Even based just on this evidence, the case for HCQ looks very, very weak. The only positive report was riddled with caveats that could easily explain a false-positive, and other reports see next to no effect. Note that it's perhaps not so interesting whether it has some effect; for this to really matter, it needs to be somewhat significant effect (in the real-world impact sense, not the statistically measurable sense). And even a small sample can reliably detect large effects; several studies have now not found such an effect; ergo: it doesn't exist. If HCQ has any benefit whatsoever as applied once very sick, the benefit is likely too small to matter much in terms of mortality. And it's unlikely to be relevant whether it works beforehand; there's no way to make enough to give it to everyone which is what you'd need to do if you wanted to significantly impact the pandemic if HCQ were prophylactic. It seems very unlikely at this point that HCQ is going to matter much in the course of the pandemic.
cscurmudgeon 7y ago
"Weak evidence for effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine but our sample was likely too small for it to pass a T-test but it has a compound that was championed by a politician so it will be trumpeted far and wide by those who don't understand any of it and it will trampled upon similarly by those who don't understand any of it. "
magicalist 7y ago
> Title of the paper could (with a tongue firmly in cheek) be called, "Weak evidence for effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine but our sample was likely too small for it to pass a T-test" It would be irresponsible to choose an experimental design (like significance level) and then use wishy-washy language ("weak evidence") to work around it when the study criteria aren't met. This would be more akin to the headline from the press release for the study from the university PR office.
- dhimes 7y ago
  In the US the phrase "tongue-in-cheek" means "kidding."
  - magicalist 7y ago
    > In the US the phrase "tongue-in-cheek" means "kidding." I took that to mean they obviously weren't suggesting something so conversational as the actual title, but the takeaway is the same and shouldn't be a conclusion taken from the OP comment.
dwaltrip 7y ago
It is not evidence (weak or otherwise) for the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine. Your version is misleading.
- rodonn 7y ago
  It is weak evidence for the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine. e.g. if you ran this as a Bayesian analysis you would find that these results should shift your beliefs towards it being more likely that hydroxychloroquine reduces deaths + ICU visits. However you are correct that the medical community has decided to be conservative to reduce the likelihood people make decisions based on weak evidence. That may be the correct decision from a overall social welfare perspective. In that framework all we can say is "this experiment did not generate enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis".

briefcomment 7y ago

Wow, I would love titles like this.

sadfklsjlkjwt 7y ago

Or better "We did a study with too few examples and did not get meaningful data"

A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago

I agree. I wonder if we could try to move click-baity articles under truth in advertising legislation of some sort. edit: clarified it a little

marcosdumay 7y ago

This is the kind of study where it would be beneficial for it to be ignore. The correct headline is no headline at all.

emn13 7y ago
Well, given the time constraints, and the fact that the previous paper was had a much weaker setup yet claimed efficacy, I think this paper is a good idea. Incidentally, it's not the only such paper; a chinese analysis from the early days came to a comparable conclusion. Even based just on this evidence, the case for HCQ looks very, very weak. The only positive report was riddled with caveats that could easily explain a false-positive, and other reports see next to no effect. Note that it's perhaps not so interesting whether it has some effect; for this to really matter, it needs to be somewhat significant effect (in the real-world impact sense, not the statistically measurable sense). And even a small sample can reliably detect large effects; several studies have now not found such an effect; ergo: it doesn't exist. If HCQ has any benefit whatsoever as applied once very sick, the benefit is likely too small to matter much in terms of mortality. And it's unlikely to be relevant whether it works beforehand; there's no way to make enough to give it to everyone which is what you'd need to do if you wanted to significantly impact the pandemic if HCQ were prophylactic. It seems very unlikely at this point that HCQ is going to matter much in the course of the pandemic.

cscurmudgeon 7y ago

"Weak evidence for effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine but our sample was likely too small for it to pass a T-test but it has a compound that was championed by a politician so it will be trumpeted far and wide by those who don't understand any of it and it will trampled upon similarly by those who don't understand any of it. "

magicalist 7y ago

> Title of the paper could (with a tongue firmly in cheek) be called, "Weak evidence for effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine but our sample was likely too small for it to pass a T-test" It would be irresponsible to choose an experimental design (like significance level) and then use wishy-washy language ("weak evidence") to work around it when the study criteria aren't met. This would be more akin to the headline from the press release for the study from the university PR office.

dhimes 7y ago
In the US the phrase "tongue-in-cheek" means "kidding."
- magicalist 7y ago
  > In the US the phrase "tongue-in-cheek" means "kidding." I took that to mean they obviously weren't suggesting something so conversational as the actual title, but the takeaway is the same and shouldn't be a conclusion taken from the OP comment.

dwaltrip 7y ago

It is not evidence (weak or otherwise) for the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine. Your version is misleading.

rodonn 7y ago
It is weak evidence for the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine. e.g. if you ran this as a Bayesian analysis you would find that these results should shift your beliefs towards it being more likely that hydroxychloroquine reduces deaths + ICU visits. However you are correct that the medical community has decided to be conservative to reduce the likelihood people make decisions based on weak evidence. That may be the correct decision from a overall social welfare perspective. In that framework all we can say is "this experiment did not generate enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis".