The authors have constructed an arbitrary ordinal scale here from 1-6, where 6 is the worst (death) and 1 is the best (discharged) Based on this scale, most patients improved on remdesivirpic.twitter.com/UtcUDlTvzX
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
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 days
2) But the authors are completely up front and transparent about the limitations of the work. They are transparent about their affiliations. They discuss the shortcomings. They are clear about caveats. (next)
3. In a health crisis where days matter, they put what information they had into the public space. If they didn't they'd be criticized for keeping the information hidden in house! (next)
4. They did exactly what we should be doing -- presenting timely information in the best venues, clearly listing all of the limitations of the work and guarding against lofty interpretations. That's what they did. Dropouts, patient cohort, retrospective-- that was all clear.
Well then, good thing they are running some massive RCTs - right? This was a retrospective, open-label study with interesting results. Particularly, no clear sign of safety/tox and patients faired well. I think you're over-interpreting bias and COI (they aren't profiting on Rem.)
60% of the patients studied experienced an adverse effect, that doesn’t exactly bode well for safety.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.