The paragraph also isn't good news for the study's rigor Of 61 total patients, 8 were excluded because of missing information Of the remaining 53, only 40 received the full course of the drug
-
-
Now, I'd argue that this is...problematic It is extremely difficult to compare patients across trials, and absolutely NOT best practice We also saw a high dropout rate in the trial, with 20% of patients not receiving the complete treatment!https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1249547200834580485?s=20 …
Show this thread -
We also have very few patients in this trial, and no control group Also, the patients were selected by their doctors - perhaps picking the patients that they thought had a fighting chance? We can't really say whether the death rate was low or high from the data we have!
Show this thread -
To the author's credit, the final paragraph acknowledges most of this!pic.twitter.com/0TdO2drS1C
Show this thread -
Let's sum up:
very small retrospective trial
no control group
written by pharma funder
high dropout
short timeframe
missing data
poorly written/edited
somewhat odd stats
highly selected patient cohort
no causal conclusions!Show this thread -
Basically, it was a very small study with HUGE caveats that showed an interesting possibility Hard to say anything more than that without a proper trial of some kind
Show this thread -
Some might argue that this should not have been published as a research trial, given the many caveats and huge conflicts of interest this study seems to contain I guess that's a question for
@NEJM, who appear to have garnered millions of reads on the article in the last few daysShow this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.