Something similar has happened with this study that showed a correlation between Vitamin D levels and all-cause mortality based on a Mendelian randomization analysis, which is based on so many assumptions that when researches say it is almost as good as an RCT, you wonder. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2021; 9: 837–46 was the original artic…
Something similar has happened with this study that showed a correlation between Vitamin D levels and all-cause mortality based on a Mendelian randomization analysis, which is based on so many assumptions that when researches say it is almost as good as an RCT, you wonder. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2021; 9: 837–46 was the original article. This week saw two letters arguing that the statistics and assumptions used were flawed and the authors have accepted this and finally said that their study does not support a causal relationship between vitamin D and outcomes. This is basically a retraction of the results, which were initially touted in the media...not sure if the journal has subsequently published an editorial on this whole mess.
I don't think they shared the data but based on what was published, the authors of the rebuttal letters posted their comments. Also, this is the UK biobank data, so I assume the data is public...not sure.
Something similar has happened with this study that showed a correlation between Vitamin D levels and all-cause mortality based on a Mendelian randomization analysis, which is based on so many assumptions that when researches say it is almost as good as an RCT, you wonder. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2021; 9: 837–46 was the original article. This week saw two letters arguing that the statistics and assumptions used were flawed and the authors have accepted this and finally said that their study does not support a causal relationship between vitamin D and outcomes. This is basically a retraction of the results, which were initially touted in the media...not sure if the journal has subsequently published an editorial on this whole mess.
I don't think they shared the data but based on what was published, the authors of the rebuttal letters posted their comments. Also, this is the UK biobank data, so I assume the data is public...not sure.