David Flood
@davidcflood.bsky.social
Med-Peds doc, global health researcher, Guatemalaphile, likes to bake bread, Asst Prof @U-Michigan
Medicine
31%
Public Health
23%
That's what I would do! Football coaches are nuts though.
So Kelly could take this LSU deal and then get a job at say Michigan State where they would definitely pay him >$20mm over this 6 year period. So the more I think about it the more reasonable it might be for him to seriously consider such a deal. Maybe his hostile response is a negotiating tactic.
Even discounting Kelly's future cash flows at 5-6%, the present value of his contract is ~$45mm, meaning he leaves $20mm on the table by taking the $25mm deal.
But LSU apparently offered to cut out his "duty to mitigate" clause, which allows LSU to offset payments against Kelly's future earnings.
But LSU apparently offered to cut out his "duty to mitigate" clause, which allows LSU to offset payments against Kelly's future earnings.
www.cochranelibrary.com
Please find our comment describing concerns about this review:
www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10....
@mikejohansenmd.medsky.social @hswapnil.medsky.social @rnflex.bsky.social
www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10....
@mikejohansenmd.medsky.social @hswapnil.medsky.social @rnflex.bsky.social
I agree with you guys. Bsky is too quiet. LinkedIn too much about self-promotion. X not a platform I'm willing to participate in. Sigh. Wish we had the old days of Twitter.
can’t wait to read the reviews from “evidence synthesis experts” in 10 years telling us this effect size is not clinically significant
May I ask: Reports from whom? Do you have a reference? I have not seen reporting to this effect.
Even a therapy that gave eternal life would not be clinically significant according to this flawed methodology.
@mikejohansenmd.medsky.social The fatal flaw is they pre-specified a clinically relevant absolute risk threshold without considering time horizon or base rate.
The base rate in these trials of <1 year was 0.5%, which is less than the 1% absolute risk reduction they said was clinically significant.
The base rate in these trials of <1 year was 0.5%, which is less than the 1% absolute risk reduction they said was clinically significant.
This RRR is even greater than that for high-intensity statins in meta analyses!
What are these authors even talking about?! this needs to be retracted. The RR’s show massive relative effect size and the authors describe this incorrectly (they talk about absolute terms, not relative terms)
I think in the present era Cochrane probably does more harm than good.
Colin out of curiosity: if you had to “steelman” these choices from Wink, what would be the best argument?
UM did get away with 2 uncalled PI. I wonder if the EPA on those 2 about equilibrate the EPA on this one.
The test characteristics for screening for CKD are very different than for the diseases you mention. The benefits of treatment also different.
If treatments are available that can help at early stages of most causes of CKD (RAASi, SGLT2i, etc), why WOULDN’T we screen? Economics? How much does saving 20 years of dialysis get you? What about human costs?
www.kireports.org/article/S246...
www.kireports.org/article/S246...
Urine screening to early diagnose young individuals with CKD: a call for action
Alport syndrome is an inherited disorder of basement membranes leading to progressive
chronic kidney disease, hearing loss, and ocular abnormalities in many affected patients.
When the authors started...
www.kireports.org
Screening is seductive especially to specialists who see the impact of these terrible diseases. But unfortunately screening often is not as effective as we would hope.
Weird. The pdf shows the abstract version not the pubmed version.
The other thing is that the methods of the per protocol analyses are summarized in one paragraph without much detail. No mention in supplement. These analyses are not trivial (including simulation!), like another full paper. I would like to see what assumptions and methods are being used here.
It is egregious that the editors let them stick the per protocol analysis in the abstract.
Reposted by David Flood
Urine screening to early diagnose young individuals with CKD: a call for action
Alport syndrome is an inherited disorder of basement membranes leading to progressive
chronic kidney disease, hearing loss, and ocular abnormalities in many affected patients.
When the authors started...
www.kireports.org
If treatments are available that can help at early stages of most causes of CKD (RAASi, SGLT2i, etc), why WOULDN’T we screen? Economics? How much does saving 20 years of dialysis get you? What about human costs?
www.kireports.org/article/S246...
www.kireports.org/article/S246...
It is a race to the bottom while publishing companies drive down costs and try to extract more from authors to maintain their very high profit margins.
At a BMJ family journal, we had a manuscript repeatedly bounced back because the submission system did not auto detect all of the authors on a long author list. So they requested submit cumbersome form to “change authors”, signed by all authors, even though the manuscript shows no such change made.
Journals are increasingly offshoring or AI-ing the gate keeping “quality control” functions before an editor even sees the manuscript.
It is so incredibly frustrating to get one’s manuscript bounced back for totally ridiculous and trivial issues. And it is impossible to get the journals to budge
It is so incredibly frustrating to get one’s manuscript bounced back for totally ridiculous and trivial issues. And it is impossible to get the journals to budge