At first sight, this study is clearly and irremediably flawed. The key point is in my opinion that they used a google form to disseminate their survey, declaring that " The distribution strategy involved sharing the survey with the intended population through group posts and direct messages, ensuring broad accessibility for potential participants", however the "intended population" is never defined and it is likely that they just collected responses as they came, with no control of the sample composition, which is likely eventually representative of nothing. In the inclusion criteria they mention only vaccine inoculation while in data collection the write "The study was conducted on individuals who had previously experienced the onset and duration of cardiac complications". It is likely that mainly people who sufferend from any post vaccine complications answered the survey, and this could well explain the high percentage of subjects with cardiac issues. In other terms, there is a fatal selection bias which makes this study irrelevant, flawed and misleading It should have been rejected and now it deserves retraction. Imho.
These are all very good observations. Thank you for sharing. Indeed, it should never have been published. It does seem likely there is such a fatal selection bias as you described. In that case, it is even more troublesome that: (1) The authors obviously thought these astronomical percentages were reasonable and correct, and that they still had the audacity to give such a positive spin on the study outcome, and (2) that they reported an overall positive participant's perceptions regarding the mRNA vaccines - Table 5 does seem to be biased the opposite direction that you would expect if it was mostly those who were injured who responded to the survey. Unless, of course, people are afraid enough to articulate what is obvious!!
With all these concerns, Cureus would be well advised to retract a genuinely flawed and misleading study (for a change).
At first sight, this study is clearly and irremediably flawed. The key point is in my opinion that they used a google form to disseminate their survey, declaring that " The distribution strategy involved sharing the survey with the intended population through group posts and direct messages, ensuring broad accessibility for potential participants", however the "intended population" is never defined and it is likely that they just collected responses as they came, with no control of the sample composition, which is likely eventually representative of nothing. In the inclusion criteria they mention only vaccine inoculation while in data collection the write "The study was conducted on individuals who had previously experienced the onset and duration of cardiac complications". It is likely that mainly people who sufferend from any post vaccine complications answered the survey, and this could well explain the high percentage of subjects with cardiac issues. In other terms, there is a fatal selection bias which makes this study irrelevant, flawed and misleading It should have been rejected and now it deserves retraction. Imho.
These are all very good observations. Thank you for sharing. Indeed, it should never have been published. It does seem likely there is such a fatal selection bias as you described. In that case, it is even more troublesome that: (1) The authors obviously thought these astronomical percentages were reasonable and correct, and that they still had the audacity to give such a positive spin on the study outcome, and (2) that they reported an overall positive participant's perceptions regarding the mRNA vaccines - Table 5 does seem to be biased the opposite direction that you would expect if it was mostly those who were injured who responded to the survey. Unless, of course, people are afraid enough to articulate what is obvious!!
With all these concerns, Cureus would be well advised to retract a genuinely flawed and misleading study (for a change).