Talk:RECOVERY Trial

Medicine: Emergency / Pulmonology Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Emergency medicine and EMS task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Pharmacology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

COVID-19 High‑importance

	COVID-19 portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Similarity to press release

The page was flagged by @CommanderWaterford: as being too similar to a non-free copyrighted source, "cathlabdigest.com", which is a bit cheeky because that website merely reproduced the Oxford press release in its entirety - and claimed copyright over it. I have always believed that Press Releases are not copyrighted as they are intended to be widely disseminated and used without restriction, but I have changed the wording of several paragraphs anyway to avoid this issue. I will remove the tag tomorrow unless anyone objects in the meantime. If anyone feels that there is still an issue with too close a paraphrasing of the press release, then please accept my apologies and reinstate the tag, but please take the trouble to point the tag to the original press release. Thanks Hallucegenia (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wrong dosage for hydroxychloroquine should be mentioned

Watching this video it seems that hydroxychloroquine was given at far higher doses than is recommended. That ought to be mentioned. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBn4e69tGlg&t=1214s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.32.254.238 (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dosage used for a nine-day intervention to try to save someone's life should not be compared to the long-term dosage recommended for treating rheumatism. The preprint explains that the dose was as high as they could safely make it, and details the analysis done to check that the dose used was not causing potentially lethal heart arhythmias (lines 261-277). If that bloke on your video had bothered to read all the paper, he would have seen this too. Hallucegenia (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REGEN-COV

The Recovery trial has released preliminary results for its REGEN-COV arm. Such a statement is a historical fact, which is not covered by the WP:MEDRS requirement to be listed in a peer-reviewed journal. This information has been added by two different editors, but each time has been removed by a third, most recently here.

I don't want to get into an edit war, so I am asking here how we should word a sub-section that reports the fact that the Regen-Cov arm has been closed and that the researchers claim that "RECOVERY trial finds Regeneron’s monoclonal antibody combination reduces deaths for hospitalised COVID-19 patients who have not mounted their own immune response". Whether or not their preliminary finding stands after peer review, we need to keep this article up-to-date. After all, it is an article on the Recovery Trial, not an article on treatments for Covid-19. Hallucegenia (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for coverage in secondary sources? Alexbrn (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are plenty of those, so if that's the only objection I will take that as WP:CONSENSUS Hallucegenia (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]