Oh look. The RECOVERY preprint is out

I am glad I was a staunch advocate we adopt this asap as it was not a typical 'medicine by PR' because the manuscript is sound.

End of story.
Change your practice now. https://twitter.com/greg_folkers/status/1275186349381791744

Here is how i knew this was not a typical medicine by press release

Because, I am a student and critic of 'medicine by press release' https://twitter.com/VPrasadMDMPH/status/1273028969718337536?s=20

5 days ago, I doubled down on that thread, and highlighted more reasons why we should adopted this immediately https://twitter.com/VPrasadMDMPH/status/1273319792951214080?s=20

I showed it as a Pascal's wager https://twitter.com/VPrasadMDMPH/status/1273727674670657537?s=20

I blew my top in a podcast https://soundcloud.com/plenarysession/ep257

And now, I have read the paper in its entirety, and I find nothing problematic

And I doubt anyone else will find any red flag.

It will later be published in a journal. NEJM or Lancet is my guess.

If you delayed, you made a bad a call.

Not only in retrospect, but at the time

the calculus was clear to adopt
respected investigators
could read protocol
low cost
low potential for rare AE
no FCOI
clear pre-specified subgroups in protocol
large and convincing effect size on
endpoint that matters

For the folks who were reluctant due to Surgisphere.
That was literally a form of 'last case' bias that so often plagues surgeons and leads to bad decision making

It was also an irrational take home lesson as surgisphere CLEARED & not CAUGHT by peer review, lets not forget

The inference for clinical care is EXACTLY as detailed in PR

Table 1 confirms the trial is broadly representative of the UK

My take home message is we have a critical appraisal crisis in medicine

When errors occur

9/10 the error is accepting a result that is problematic

1/10 (as here) it is unfair cynicism

Both are bad & deadly.
If we teach better, we can improve both

That means less Kreb cycle