{"id":10624,"date":"2018-10-24T09:01:39","date_gmt":"2018-10-24T08:01:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/?p=10624"},"modified":"2020-01-17T16:20:33","modified_gmt":"2020-01-17T16:20:33","slug":"a-bad-study-is-worse-than-no-study","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/sciencesurf\/2018\/10\/a-bad-study-is-worse-than-no-study\/","title":{"rendered":"A bad study is worse than no study"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>&#8220;Direct infant UV light exposure is associated with eczema and immune development&#8221;. Kristina Rueter, Anderson P. Jones, Aris Siafarikas, Ee-Mun Lim, Natasha Bear, Paul S. Noakes, Susan L. Prescott and Debra J. Palmer.<br \/>\nArticle in press 2018 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma &amp; Immunology <a href=\"https:\/\/www.jacionline.org\/article\/S0091-6749(18)31289-2\/fulltext\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jaci.2018.08.037<\/a><\/p>\n<p>These graphical abstracts look a bit strange like &#8220;science for dummies&#8221;. Isn&#8217;t there a major discrepancy of title and abstract?<\/p>\n<p>IMHO this is a RCT of vitamin D supplementation of newborns and not a study of UV light exposure. Maybe the authors needed a selling point for a poorly designed study?<\/p>\n<p>The (only) allergy outcome is shown in table. 6 of 90 in the placebo group and 9 of 90 in the vitamin group develop eczema. This translates into an OR of 1.6 (0.5-4.6, P = 0.4214). I read this as a non significant association of exposure and outcome which is quite understandable given<\/p>\n<p>1. the low power of the study. My result of a <a href=\"http:\/\/clincalc.com\/stats\/Power.aspx\">post hoc power calculation<\/a> is around 12%.<br \/>\n2. the ignorance of the main eczema risk factor ( filaggrin mutation!). Allocation by a &#8220;history of maternal allergic disease&#8221; does not allocate <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nejm.org\/doi\/full\/10.1056\/NEJMra1011040\">filaggrin<\/a> mutations equally between groups.<br \/>\n3. the ignorance of maternal vitamin D levels. Restricting to maternal levels &gt;50 nmol\/L introduced as a bias toward supplemented fetuses.<br \/>\n4. the ignorance of vitamin D fed by formula. So clearly this is more a dose-finding study and not a RCT of vitamin D supplementation as also the controls are (heavily) exposed.<br \/>\n5. the ignorance of the most relevant outcome in this age group (which is sensitization against food allergens).<br \/>\n6. the trial registration number is wrong.<br \/>\n7. the flowchart numbers have errors, for example the size of the vitamin D group at 3 months need to be N=91 and not N=90.<br \/>\n8. the &#8220;vitamin D hypothesis&#8221; did not emerge to explain associations found between regions of higher latitudes and increased risk of development of allergic diseases in children &#8211; the hypothesis emerged by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/10442534\">theoretical considerations of the immune effects<\/a> of artificial vitamin D supplementation.<\/p>\n<p>JACI &#8211; how did that survive your review?<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">17.1.2020 Update<\/span><\/p>\n<p>As it turned out, I didn&#8217;t find all issue, there are even more when reading now the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.doi.org\/10.1111\/bjd.18087\">review of Maslin et al.<\/a><\/p>\n\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<div class=\"bottom-note\">\n  <span class=\"mod1\">CC-BY-NC Science Surf , accessed 30.04.2026<\/span>\n <\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>&#8220;Direct infant UV light exposure is associated with eczema and immune development&#8221;. Kristina Rueter, Anderson P. Jones, Aris Siafarikas, Ee-Mun Lim, Natasha Bear, Paul S. Noakes, Susan L. Prescott and Debra J. Palmer. Article in press 2018 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma &amp; Immunology https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jaci.2018.08.037 These graphical abstracts look a bit strange like &#8220;science for &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/sciencesurf\/2018\/10\/a-bad-study-is-worse-than-no-study\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">A bad study is worse than no study<\/span> <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10624","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-asthma-allergy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10624","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10624"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10624\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15173,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10624\/revisions\/15173"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10624"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10624"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10624"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}