Echoes of PACE-gate in highly-publicised low-carb study

[InitialConditions]

*Trying to embed tweet in post - may or may not work!

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">More developments from that low-carb study a few weeks back: The authors are now saying they had 2/3 of the data (on 50 percent of the study participants) before making their decision to change their primary end point. Hmm<a href="https://t.co/kee5x2UuhY">https://t.co/kee5x2UuhY</a><br><br>Story: <a href="https://t.co/6ejWsL4xar">https://t.co/6ejWsL4xar</a></p>&mdash; Julia Belluz (@juliaoftoronto) <a href="">December 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[InitialConditions]

Author clarification to paper: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4583/rr-18

I wonder how often this stuff goes on in trials...

 

[JaimeS]

Author clarification to paper: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4583/rr-18

I wonder how often this stuff goes on in trials...

Often.

 

[inox]

Respons from the authors are refreshingly non-pace like though

“It’s fair for any scientist to raise questions, reanalyze data, and challenge interpretations,” Ludwig added. “In the interest of maximum transparency, we posted the full data set and statistical code so that anyone can conduct additional analyses.”