Benefit of OTC Formula Against COVID-19 Is Explained by Selection Bias.

IF 3.3 Q1 INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE Journal of Evidence-based Integrative Medicine Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1177/2515690X211058417
Harri Hemilä
{"title":"Benefit of OTC Formula Against COVID-19 Is Explained by Selection Bias.","authors":"Harri Hemilä","doi":"10.1177/2515690X211058417","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Margolin et al. published a study in which they concluded that a multi-component OTC formulation containing vitamin C, vitamin E, vitamin D, zinc, lysine, quercetin, and Quina extract prevented COVID-19. They reported that 9 of the 60 control participants became COVID-19 positive during the 20-weeks follow-up, whereas none of the 53 participants in the OTC regimen group became COVID-19 positive. Participants were not divided into the groups randomly, nor by alternative allocation. Instead, participants of the “test” group decided for themselves to participate in the trial, whereas the “control” participants decided for themselves not to participate. Margolin argues that “subjects of the regimen-compliant test group and the non-compliant control group both met the same set of inclusion criteria”. However, “the same set of inclusion criteria” in this case does not make compliant and non-compliant participants similar. It is highly likely that there are systematic life-style and other differences between people who chose and those who do not chose to participate in intervention trials. In fact, there is empirical evidence for differences in people by willingness and compliance. In the follow-up of the questionnaire-cohort of the Physicians’ Health Study, age-adjusted overall mortality was 19% lower among 59 277 men who were willing to participate, compared with 52 883 men who were not willing to participate in the trial. However, when baseline characteristics were taken into account, the adjusted difference fell to just 5% and was no longer a significant difference. Thus, essentially all of the significant 19% difference was explained by life-style and other differences between the two groups. For example, “those who were willing, tended to be younger, exercise more, and be less likely to have a positive disease history for several major chronic conditions”. Thus, the uniform set of criteria for sending the questionnaire to the large group of male physicians aged 40 to 84 years did not generate to a homogeneous group of men, and within the large group there were substantial systematic differences between those who were willing and those who were not willing to participate in the trial. In epidemiology this phenomenon is called selection bias. The purpose of randomization in randomized controlled trials (RCT) is to form two (or more) groups that do not have any systematic differences between the groups. Thereby the differences between the groups that appear during intervention can be attributed to the particular intervention. There is RCT evidence that vitamin C may influence COVID-19, and that nasal carrageenan influences coronavirus infections. Therefore, randomized trials on OTC treatments for the newcoronavirus andother respiratory viruses should be encouraged. However, comparison of participants who are willing versus notwilling to participate in a trial is fundamentally biased and therefore thefindings of theMargolin study are not a validmeasure of the OTC regimen effect.","PeriodicalId":15714,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence-based Integrative Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8591635/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Evidence-based Integrative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2515690X211058417","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Margolin et al. published a study in which they concluded that a multi-component OTC formulation containing vitamin C, vitamin E, vitamin D, zinc, lysine, quercetin, and Quina extract prevented COVID-19. They reported that 9 of the 60 control participants became COVID-19 positive during the 20-weeks follow-up, whereas none of the 53 participants in the OTC regimen group became COVID-19 positive. Participants were not divided into the groups randomly, nor by alternative allocation. Instead, participants of the “test” group decided for themselves to participate in the trial, whereas the “control” participants decided for themselves not to participate. Margolin argues that “subjects of the regimen-compliant test group and the non-compliant control group both met the same set of inclusion criteria”. However, “the same set of inclusion criteria” in this case does not make compliant and non-compliant participants similar. It is highly likely that there are systematic life-style and other differences between people who chose and those who do not chose to participate in intervention trials. In fact, there is empirical evidence for differences in people by willingness and compliance. In the follow-up of the questionnaire-cohort of the Physicians’ Health Study, age-adjusted overall mortality was 19% lower among 59 277 men who were willing to participate, compared with 52 883 men who were not willing to participate in the trial. However, when baseline characteristics were taken into account, the adjusted difference fell to just 5% and was no longer a significant difference. Thus, essentially all of the significant 19% difference was explained by life-style and other differences between the two groups. For example, “those who were willing, tended to be younger, exercise more, and be less likely to have a positive disease history for several major chronic conditions”. Thus, the uniform set of criteria for sending the questionnaire to the large group of male physicians aged 40 to 84 years did not generate to a homogeneous group of men, and within the large group there were substantial systematic differences between those who were willing and those who were not willing to participate in the trial. In epidemiology this phenomenon is called selection bias. The purpose of randomization in randomized controlled trials (RCT) is to form two (or more) groups that do not have any systematic differences between the groups. Thereby the differences between the groups that appear during intervention can be attributed to the particular intervention. There is RCT evidence that vitamin C may influence COVID-19, and that nasal carrageenan influences coronavirus infections. Therefore, randomized trials on OTC treatments for the newcoronavirus andother respiratory viruses should be encouraged. However, comparison of participants who are willing versus notwilling to participate in a trial is fundamentally biased and therefore thefindings of theMargolin study are not a validmeasure of the OTC regimen effect.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
选择偏差解释了OTC配方抗COVID-19的好处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Evidence-based Integrative Medicine
Journal of Evidence-based Integrative Medicine INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE-
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
43
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Objective Evaluation of Pulse Width Using an Array Pulse Diagram. Garcinia dulcis Extract Alleviates Inflammation in Kidney and Liver of the 2-Kidney-1-Clip Hypertensive rat. In Vivo Anti-Hepatocellular Carcinoma Effects of the Chloroform Root Extract of Clausena excavata Burm. Effect of Aqueous Extract of Unripe Musa Paradisiaca Linn on Parameters Affecting Reproduction in Rats. A Combination of Curcumin and Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG Inhibits Viability and Induces Apoptosis in SCC-9 Human Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma Cells.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1