I recommend reading the comments, there are serious concerns about the validity of the study.
There are also fundamental math errors - which the authors acknowledge, search for "we acknowledge" in the comments. Funny part - even while acknowledging it, they still fail to do the math correctly - PPV is 39.7% not 59%.
Still not enough, read Esther Rodriguez' comment on the paper.
Might be innocent mistakes. Might even still be a correct conclusion - but this paper alone can't stand by itself, and there's nothing else backing it up (as far as I can tell with a quick search)
If you follow the ling for the full study, you end up at https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar....
I recommend reading the comments, there are serious concerns about the validity of the study.
There are also fundamental math errors - which the authors acknowledge, search for "we acknowledge" in the comments. Funny part - even while acknowledging it, they still fail to do the math correctly - PPV is 39.7% not 59%.
Still not enough, read Esther Rodriguez' comment on the paper.
Still not enough, read this post on numerical inconsistencies: https://pubpeer.com/publications/0a3dd058f6fb53312c5ddd858ad... (Although I think this is possibly addressed by https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... - but I currently don't have the time to follow up in detail)
The paper is, as the kids say, "somewhat sus".
Might be innocent mistakes. Might even still be a correct conclusion - but this paper alone can't stand by itself, and there's nothing else backing it up (as far as I can tell with a quick search)