Critical Review of Mitja et al. Study on Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19

CMHL1005 Evidence Informed Health Practice
Assessment 2
Student Name:
Student
Number:
Curtin Email:
Unit: CMHL1001 Evidence Informed Health Practice (CMHL1000)
Tutors:
Due Date:
I declare that this project is my own work and has not been submitted in any form for another unit,
degree or diploma at any university or other institute of tertiary education. I have filled out the
plagiarism checklist and I declare that information derived from the published or unpublished work
of others has been acknowledged in the text and a list of references is given. I warrant that any disks
and/or computer files submitted as part of this project have been checked for viruses.
Student Signature
Date:
1

Plagiarism Checklist
Please complete the checklist by checking the box and signing off electronically (by typing your name or
inserting a picture of your signature) – Please keep the checklist within this page.
☒
☒
☒
☒
☒
☒
☒
☒
Signed:
Date:
2

Assessment 2 – Critical review
Questions with marking guide
DO NOT DELETE QUESTION TEXT AND MARK ALLOCATIONS
Part A: Critical Review (800 words, 24 marks)
1.) GENERAL (total 3 marks)
In no more than 150 words, summarise the most important (primary) results of this research
paper in your own words. Where provided, your summary should make reference to the
following:
 The differences in the scores between the groups for the outcomes (dependent
variables of interest) and;
 The statistical significance of the final group scores.
There was no clear difference in score between the controlled arm study and the
intervention study at day 3, where the score was −1.41 and −1.41 log10 copies/mL However,
there was a slight change in both studies of the effectiveness of the intervention study. The
record of the study showed that both studies were close in score at day 7, scoring −3.37 and
−3.44 log10 copies/mL
For the given topic, the study is being conducted over 293 patients who are generally
eligible for the intention to treat analysis. Within this, there were about 157 who are in
control arm as well as about 136 within the interventions arm. Overall mean age group was
41.6 age years, mean viral load at the baseline was about 7.09 log10 copies per mL as well
as the median time from the onset of the symptoms towards the randomization was for
three days. There were no differences were found within the mean reduction of viral load at
the third day or at the seventh day. In addition to this, from the analysis of provided article,
it is being determined that the treatment did not decrease the developing risk of
hospitalization nor it can shorten the time to complete the resolution of the specific
symptoms. for this illness, there were no relevant adverse events were reported (Bentur and
et. al, 2021).
a. Using the statistical significance between groups (where available), discuss the similarity
between groups at baseline. In your answer, consider: (1) the number of participants in each
group; and (2) the characteristics of participants in each group. (2 marks)
3