In it’s own text of the author’s estimation of the value of the author’s study, it states (and I quote):
“IN THE ABSENCE OF REPORTED RANDOMIZED TRIALS, there is an urgent need to evaluate real world evidence related to outcomes use of hydroxychloroquine”.......and then it goes on to describe how they let a computer sift through disparate studies from around the world that has various related studies.
This is the laziest kind of study, and it usually gets published because of reasons related to social or timely significance, and thus the author’s make the point to let the reviewers know that they realize it, but to accept it anyways because of this other reason for publication.
The study I told you about is exactly what the author’s of this study say is missing and needed. It is exactly the study whose absence caused the author’s to explain why they offered up this stop gap study.
Further, while a small cohort is a strong sign of a study with no power, and large cohort from a computer algorithm doesn’t imply validity.
As I mentioned previously in my last post, the pertinent doses were not yet evaluated........and they still aren’t.
I spent years reviewing these kinds of things. It can’t be taught in a post, and I doubt you ever took Statistics to a degree that you are able to understand, but suffice it to say that these author’s rushed this out because of the social significance of the topic, and they admit that it is in lieu of exactly what I told you is coming out in July.
I do not have a horse I. The hydroxychloroquine race except that I hope for a treatment of COVID. This article does further suggest what I previously posted - that we don’t have evidence that it works.
But it NEEDS TO BE EVALUATED PROPERLYin a prospective, randomized fashion.
The WaPo proves again what a biased rag it is to put this out there as the end to the discussion.
Here is the actual article to look at since the WaPo is NOT a source.
Link: https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/article/s0140673620311806