For COVID-19, across the 169 treatments we analyze, there
is no difference in results
between RCTs and observational studies, RR 0.99 [0.93‑1.06].
Restricting to, or waiting for, RCTs provided no benefit.
Observational studies for COVID-19 do not systematically overestimate or underestimate
efficacy when compared with RCTs, as found in previous research1,2, and
they
provided confirmation of efficacy 8+ months faster3.
RCTs aim to equalize study groups, but add
their own biases. For acute diseases with strong benefits for earlier treatment,
the typical increased treatment delay adds a major confounding factor.
Both RCTs and observational studies span the bias spectrum, from minimal to extreme.
Studies must be evaluated individually.
While obsevational studies require greater expertise to analyze, the advantages in
practicality, cost, time, and ethics are substantial.
Please send us corrections, updates, or comments.
c19early involves the extraction of 100,000+ datapoints from
thousands of papers. Community updates
help ensure high accuracy.
Treatments and other interventions are complementary.
All practical, effective, and safe
means should be used based on risk/benefit analysis.
No treatment or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current
and future variants.
We do not provide medical advice. Before taking any medication,
consult a qualified physician who can provide personalized advice and details
of risks and benefits based on your medical history and situation. IMA and WCH
provide treatment protocols.
Thanks for your feedback! Please search before submitting papers and note
that studies are listed under the date they were first available, which may be
the date of an earlier preprint.
