Although one could argue it adds little to the body of evidence due to wide CIs and *maybe* risk of bias (I have not checked it), the choice of primary endpoint was NOT inadequate. Hospitalisation, OTOH, would be more prone to bias (softer endpoint).
Mechanisms maybe not, but claims about disease yes definitely. Back in March we were discussing whether the drug should be given to hospitalised patients, now since it doesn't work for any indication tested so far the claims have become ridiculously specific
-
-
I mean, it doesn't work to prevent disease in any context, doesn't prevent progression from mild->severe disease, doesn't improve outcomes of severe disease...but it does prevent a subset of infections from becoming serious? Do you think that's likely?
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Quality is more important than quantity when it comes to papers. 100s of terrible studies about HCQ proved nothing much, but the few really good ones have universally found no benefit (as we'd expect if it didn't work)
End of 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.