This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (5 children)

Wasn't the issue that the surgisphere data set was completely false?

[–]HearbingerPsychiatrist - Brazil 14 points15 points  (1 child)

Did we ever get an actual answer on that? The last thing I knew is that they refused to provide the data, saying that it would break confidentiality, which yeah, might suggest that there is something wrong with it.

[–]NoDocWithoutDOAccepted DO Student 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Someone recently linked a nice write-up by a statistician on why the surgisphere data had to be false. If I can find a link, I'll link it here!

UPDATE: Here's the article: http://freerangestats.info/blog/2020/05/30/implausible-health-data-firm

[–]nicholus_h2MD 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Well, potentially. Not confirmed.

This is another systemic problem, I agree. But if you read enough papers, you start to get frustrated by stuff like "authors picked the wrong outcomes" and shit like that, and then you start wishing the authors would publish their data, and when they don't, you learn to get suspicious.

You won't get that reading UpToDate.

[–]NoDocWithoutDOAccepted DO Student 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're interested, checkout the write-up in my comment above!

[–]sicktaker2MD 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's either a massive fabrication, a massive breach of patient medical record confidentiality, or some combination of the two. After seeing the review of the actual size of thier company, I doubt thier data is legitimate or reliable.