Briefly summarize the study you found, and then include the citations for both the mass media and the peer-reviewed articles.

Mercy Itesa

Explain what epidemiological concepts are included in the mass media article (e.g., measures of association, study design, confounders, and bias) and how they compare to those in the peer-reviewed article.

The New York Post in its article covers the study’s findings in a simplified way with the emphasis on the correlation between COVID-19 and the higher risks of developing long-term cardiovascular complications. Several key epidemiological concepts are present in both the mass media report and the peer reviewed article, but the latter provides more in depth and accurate information.

Study Design: As for the study design, the mass media article does not provide a clear explanation and instead claims that the researchers “analyzed data’ from patients with COVID-19 and noninfected people. In contrast, the peer reviewed article is more explicit on how the study was conducted, stating that a population based matched cohort study was employed to ensure comparability of the groups.

Measure of Association: In the mass media article, COVID-19 is said to "double" the risk of heart attack, stroke, or death, but specific relative risk or hazard ratio values are not provided. The peer reviewed study reports more specific statistical measures like adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with confidence intervals (CIs) to more accurately express the association between COVID-19 and cardiovascular events.

Confounders and Bias: In the peer reviewed study, confounders like age, preexisting heart disease, and diabetes are accounted for using statistical adjustments. But neither of the articles discusses how these factors were controlled for, which could lead to an oversimplified interpretation of the study’s findings.

Give your assessment of how well the mass media article represented the actual research that was conducted. Describe any obvious omissions from the mass media article that epidemiologists critiquing the study would need to know.

 In its current form, the mass media article does a reasonably good job of capturing the key take away from the scientific study, COVID-19 is linked with higher risks of cardiovascular disease. But it falls short in one crucial area: methodological details. Left out are:

Study Population and Design: A major limitation of the article is that the study does not appear to have included non hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries, which limits the ability to generalize these findings to younger or healthier populations.

Adjustment for Confounders: The possible absence of discussion on statistical adjustments and potential biases in the article may make the readers have the notion that the relationship is direct and not based on a strong association.

 Magnitude of Risk: The media report gives a vague estimate of the risk ("doubles the risk") without specifying the actual hazard ratios or confidence intervals, perhaps overemphasizing or misrepresenting the actual effect size.

 Limitations of the study: The mass media article does not admit some limitations of the study, for example, the dependence on Medicare claims data that might not capture subclinical cardiovascular disease.

Finally, imagine that a patient brings this mass media article to you and asks you for your informed opinion. Explain how you would respond or interpret the article for the patient.

 If a patient brought this mass media article to me and asked for my opinion, I would respond with the following explanation: This article focuses on an important problem – COVID-19 has been found to increase the risk of chronic cardiovascular complications. But the original research study is more nuanced. The study also had a specific population under investigation, namely older adults on Medicare; thus the findings may not be generalizable to everyone. It also controlled for other risk factors like diabetes and pre-existing heart disease, which the article does not mention. Especially when coupled with other risk factors like diabetes and preexisting heart disease, which the article does not mention. While the results are significant, they do not mean that every COVID-19 survivor will have heart problems, but rather that there is an increased risk that doctors should watch out for. If you have had COVID-19, it would be good to bring up any cardiovascular concerns to your healthcare provider and also concentrate on preventive measures like controlling blood pressure, cholesterol, and staying active. This approach balances scientific accuracy with pract