You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 82, Issue 5
  • Correspondence on ‘Historically controlled comparison of glucocorticoids with or without tocilizumab versus supportive care only in patients with COVID-19-associated cytokine storm syndrome: results of the CHIC study’

Article Text

Article menu

This article has Replies. Please see:

Download PDFPDF
Correspondence
Correspondence on ‘Historically controlled comparison of glucocorticoids with or without tocilizumab versus supportive care only in patients with COVID-19-associated cytokine storm syndrome: results of the CHIC study’
  1. Pierre Charles
  1. Internal Medicine, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France
  1. Correspondence to Dr Pierre Charles, Internal Medicine, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France; pierre.charles{at}imm.fr

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-219986

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    I was surprised when I read your web page promoting the study ‘Historically controlled comparison of glucocorticoids with or without tocilizumab versus supportive care only in patients with COVID-19-associated cytokine storm syndrome: results of the CHIC study’.1 The methodology of this study (comparison of a treatment with a historical control) is known to lead to major biases. The results were positive, consistent with …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles