Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SaltZookeepergame691 t1_j7jdudj wrote

Reply to comment by SelarDorr in Analysis showed that 65.6% of women who took extra Vitamin D gave birth naturally. The study analysed results from the MAVIDOS trial which involved 965 women being randomly allocated an extra 1,000 International Units (IU) per day of vitamin D during their pregnancy or a placebo. by Wagamaga

If you don’t have any hypothesis before you do the trial to statistically “test” (ie through null hypothesis testing) any significant result (regardless of multiple comparisons control) you generate is - by definition - hypothesis generating.

I don’t mean that the trial itself isn’t robust. It is. But the finding is not enough on its own to say “this is real”.

2

SelarDorr t1_j7kbdrz wrote

the hypothesis exists when you decide what your secondaries are.

1

SaltZookeepergame691 t1_j7kcgnv wrote

This is a post hoc analysis. This was NOT a named secondary! It explicitly says so in the paper, and it’s why I explicitly said it was a post hoc analysis…

For your info, from the reg record:

>Primary outcome measure

>Neonatal whole body bone area, bone mineral content and bone mineral density assessed by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) within 10 days of birth.

>Secondary outcome measures

>1. Neonatal and childhood anthropometry and body composition (weight, length and skinfold thickness measurements), assessed within 48 hours of birth

>2. Women's attitude to pregnancy vitamin D supplementation (qualitative study; assessed in main study only). Methodology and timepoints of assessment not yet defined as of 03/03/2008

>3. Childhood bone mass at 4 years

5