Interesting review of something that will probably be making scary (and not valid) headlines at some point.

Interesting review of something that will probably be making scary (and not valid) headlines at some point. That is, the study that suggests it found the result in the headline is debunked in the article.

Full disclosure: I think we have become way too fond of database trolling for studies without then considering that most of what we find that way has thus far ended up not clinically useful. Whether it has proven more useful than more expensive prospective studies with actual humans, I don't know.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/themethodsman/70961?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2018-02-06&eun=g1034808d0r&pos=0&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Headlines%202018-02-06&utm_term=Daily%20Headlines%20-%20Active%20User%20-%20180%20days
https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/themethodsman/70961?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2018-02-06&eun=g1034808d0r&pos=0&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily+Headlines+2018-02-06&utm_term=Daily+Headlines+-+Active+User+-+180+days