David Flood
davidcflood.bsky.social
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%

The reporting on Summers has been terrible. He was using is power as a mentor to prey on a mentee. Journalists need to stop acting like this was a workplace romance.

www.wsj.com/us-news/larr...

He mentally 1-2 days feels better though I recognize it is not logicalLu optimal to have that delay

This comment is evergreen

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.

www.cochranelibrary.com

May I ask: Reports from whom? Do you have a reference? I have not seen reporting to this effect.

@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.

This RRR is even greater than that for high-intensity statins in meta analyses!

I think in the present era Cochrane probably does more harm than good.

The test characteristics for screening for CKD are very different than for the diseases you mention. The benefits of treatment also different.

The pediatric world is different but I am not convinced of this idea:

bsky.app/profile/rhea...

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.

This is what I see

Reposted by David Flood

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...
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