Some of the results are reported in really confusing ways:
A study in Indonesia found that out of the patients that died from COVID-19, 98.9% of them were deficient in vitamin D, while only 4% of the patients with sufficient vitamin D died.
These two numbers don’t add up to 100%, which indicates immediately that something sketchy is going on. I think what this is describing is two different measurements:
Of patients who died, what percentage had vitamin D deficiency? (98.9% deficient, 1.1% sufficient)
Of patients who had deficiency or sufficiency, how many died? (4% of sufficient died, [unknown]% of deficient died)
This doesn’t change the results in this case, but it’s needlessly confusing to report an apples-and-oranges comparison when you could compare apples to apples.
A study of patients in New Orleans found that 84.6% of the COVID-19 patients in the ICU were deficient in Vitamin D while only 4% of the patients in the ICU had sufficient levels of Vitamin D.
Same thing here except they seem to be reporting the same measurement. What category are the remaining 11% in? Or is this reporting two different categories (COVID-19 patients in ICU vs all patients in ICU)?
Some of the results are reported in really confusing ways:
These two numbers don’t add up to 100%, which indicates immediately that something sketchy is going on. I think what this is describing is two different measurements:
Of patients who died, what percentage had vitamin D deficiency? (98.9% deficient, 1.1% sufficient)
Of patients who had deficiency or sufficiency, how many died? (4% of sufficient died, [unknown]% of deficient died)
This doesn’t change the results in this case, but it’s needlessly confusing to report an apples-and-oranges comparison when you could compare apples to apples.
Same thing here except they seem to be reporting the same measurement. What category are the remaining 11% in? Or is this reporting two different categories (COVID-19 patients in ICU vs all patients in ICU)?