mohammad_ali85

4 ms·

1.
by mohammad_ali85 4y ago
I'm not sure I agree with the level of adjustment being a negative here. The point they are making is that have adjusted for confounders ie. considered other covariates (all those listed) and the results still show their exposure (VILP
2.
by mohammad_ali85 5y ago
PhD student here. Aside from difficulty of accessing articles who don't have institutional access, it's significantly easier to obtain an article from sci-hub. Enter title or DOI - done. To get the same article using uni logins yo
3.
by mohammad_ali85 5y ago
This might be the twitter thread you’re referring to? https://twitter.com/json_dirs/status/1486120144141123584
4.
by mohammad_ali85 5y ago
For systematic reviews there are one of two ways that I'm aware of: PROSPERO [1] and Cochrane[2]. Cochrane is slightly more rigorous for conducting a review of this type. Although you do declare what meta-analyses you intend to do, you
5.
by mohammad_ali85 5y ago
You’re correct, no evidence at the time JCVI (joint committee for vaccination and immunisation) made the call. However the decision was made on best interests [1] from a public health perspective. Delaying to 12 weeks allowed absolute numbe
6.
by mohammad_ali85 6y ago
> No it wouldn't. One of the things that makes SARS-CoV-2 such a problem is that people get contagious long before they show symptoms. Similarly to for influenza and the common cold, many people get contagious without ever developin
7.
by mohammad_ali85 7y ago
Agreed. It isn’t clear what the issue is here. If the research protocol states 3 years of data collection it’s technically unethical, without submitting an amendment, to collect data beyond 3 years as the patient hasn’t agreed to this. Sure