3 ms·

>> suffers from at least one significant methodological flaw Is this not a randomised control trial? As I understand it, RCT is usually referred to as the “gol

>> suffers from at least one significant methodological flaw Is this not a randomised control trial? As I understand it, RCT is usually referred to as the “gold standard” - why would the gold standard be a flaw in this case? What you describe sounds to me, a layman, as an improvement over and above but if RCT is good enough normally, why discount it entirely in this case because there’s some other improvement could be made?

nanis 5y ago
> Is this not a randomised control trial? No. I am not quite sure how one might even think the words apply here. If it were, participants would be randomly assigned to the the "control" group where they do not get Covid, but would be told they had Covid (to control for the negative placebo of being told they are now afflicted with a horrible long term malady) and the "treatment" group which would actually be given a Covid infection. Assuming such a study were doable, one can then use a "within participant" comparison which is much more powerful than comparing statistics across groups. >> We sought to confirm whether there was an association between cross-sectional cognitive performance data from 81,337 participants who between January and December 2020 undertook a clinically validated web-optimized assessment as part of the Great British Intelligence Test, and questionnaire items capturing self-report of suspected and confirmed COVID-19 infection and respiratory symptoms. There is no randomized assignment here. Susceptibility to report a Covid infection without positive proof is a confounding variable. I suspect that susceptibility is correlated with other cognitive issues. A "within participant" comparison as the GP brought up would avoid these kinds of issues.
tinus_hn 5y ago
How can it be a randomized controlled trial? Did they randomize a group from the general population in advance and then randomly and blindly, but in a controlled fashion, infect part of the subjects and did they then consider the effects without looking at whether they were the infected people or the control group, until the conclusion of the study? That’s what’s require for the gold standard.
bdauvergne 5y ago
RCT is not referred as "gold standard" by serious people, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60742-5/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... that's marketing.

nanis 5y ago

> Is this not a randomised control trial? No. I am not quite sure how one might even think the words apply here. If it were, participants would be randomly assigned to the the "control" group where they do not get Covid, but would be told they had Covid (to control for the negative placebo of being told they are now afflicted with a horrible long term malady) and the "treatment" group which would actually be given a Covid infection. Assuming such a study were doable, one can then use a "within participant" comparison which is much more powerful than comparing statistics across groups. >> We sought to confirm whether there was an association between cross-sectional cognitive performance data from 81,337 participants who between January and December 2020 undertook a clinically validated web-optimized assessment as part of the Great British Intelligence Test, and questionnaire items capturing self-report of suspected and confirmed COVID-19 infection and respiratory symptoms. There is no randomized assignment here. Susceptibility to report a Covid infection without positive proof is a confounding variable. I suspect that susceptibility is correlated with other cognitive issues. A "within participant" comparison as the GP brought up would avoid these kinds of issues.

tinus_hn 5y ago

How can it be a randomized controlled trial? Did they randomize a group from the general population in advance and then randomly and blindly, but in a controlled fashion, infect part of the subjects and did they then consider the effects without looking at whether they were the infected people or the control group, until the conclusion of the study? That’s what’s require for the gold standard.

bdauvergne 5y ago

RCT is not referred as "gold standard" by serious people, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60742-5/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... that's marketing.