3 ms·
> Unless they were also testing these other interventions, that critique does not apply. How do we know they weren't? Since this is not a RTC, but rather an an
by scott_s 6y ago
> Unless they were also testing these other interventions, that critique does not apply.
How do we know they weren't? Since this is not a RTC, but rather an analysis of historical data, we don't know how much they divided up this historical data looking for correlations.
- scythe 6y agoThe general problem with this line of argument is that it's meant to be a critique of a statistical fishing expedition (sharpshooter fallacy). This study is clearly not a fishing expedition because vitamin D has been a topic of interest in coronavirus disease for months now with multiple studies conducted.
- scott_s 6y ago> This study is clearly not a fishing expedition because vitamin D has been a topic of interest in coronavirus disease for months now with multiple studies conducted. That others have studied something does not preclude these researchers from "fishing" their data looking for a correlation. Since we don't know what process they used, we can't say. When considering the other weaknesses (such as the small number of "comparators"), it furthers my consideration of this study being weak evidence.