I know that in the past some of us have discussed data vs preprints and where we get our data from. I am doing some "light reading" for some Continued Education credits that are required and part of that is doing reading on current research
Here's the point. On any valid peer reviewed study, there is a section called Limitations. Preprints skip this important step. That is where those who performed the experiment are supposed to come clean on what the limitations and weaknesses of the study were so those reviewing it don't waste their time. It also opens it up to criticism which is good to see if the data stands against the conclusion. Preprints skip this part because they are often still looking for funding etc. It's like a commercial, give us cash so we can keep doing this without saying what's wrong with the product. Both news channels have been citing preprints for clicks without doing their due diligence and it has created a lot of confusion with the public. Preprints are considered controversial in scientific circles and are avoided, but in the need for data, they have jumped to the surface and gotten the attention of media outlets for clicks and viewers or to push a media driven agenda.
It's important that the info provided is peer reviewed if we're talking about policy. This makes sure the info we go back and forth on isn't going to be contradicted 2 months down the road because the work was never peer reviewed. ie the Israeli study re: Covid Natural Immunity vs Vaccination, especially in light of a new variant which we all knew was coming.
Example of limitations of a peer reviewed study below. Every study worth its weight should have this. If it doesn't, it really shouldn't be considered.
Limitations
"This study has several limitations. First, the dis- tribution of patients across the categories of GCS and mRS scores was unequal, with a much larger group of patients in the mild GCS category than in the mod- erate and severe categories (Table 2). This uneven dis- tribution may have affected the association between the GCS and mRS scores. Another limitation relates to determining the cutoffs for mRS scores. The mRS may be approached as a dichotomous scale with a lowerrangeof0to1,0to2,or0to3ormaybe analyzed as a continuous ordinal scale.13 Previous studies have shown that the ordinal approach may have greater statistical power, as a patient with an mRS score of 5 differs clinically from a patient with an mRS score of 6.13 Another limitation was that the mRS was the only available outcome measure from the END-PANIC registry. An additional validated outcome assessment instrument might provide a dif- ferent perspective on the association between admis- sion GCS score and outcomes in non-TBI patients".
Credit to:
ADMISSION GLASGOW
COMA SCALE SCORE AS A
PREDICTOR OF OUTCOME
IN PATIENTS WITHOUT
TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY
By Amy Li, MPH, Folefac D. Atem, PhD, Aardhra M. Venkatachalam, MPH, Arianna Barnes, BSN, RN, CCRN, SCRN, PHN, Sonja E. Stutzman, PhD, and DaiWai M. Olson, PhD, RN, CCRN
