id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentences	flesch	summary	cache	txt
cord-012010-5h2ox3hu	Bos, Lieuwe D.J.	Response to “COVID-19 conundrum: Clinical phenotyping based on pathophysiology as a promising approach to guide therapy in a novel illness” and “Strengthening the foundation of the house of CARDS by phenotyping on the fly” and “COVID-19 phenotypes: leading or misleading?”	2020-08-03		.txt	text/plain	2153	117	39	take issue with our interpretation of the respiratory physiology of COVID-19, arguing that it is based merely on "small cohort studies," instead arguing that "a high proportion of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients exhibit near-normal lung compliance." [1] Yet the low respiratory compliance of COVID19 patients has now been extensively demonstrated by studies totaling more than 800 COVID-19 patients [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] , including a direct comparison with non-COVID ARDS patients that revealed no difference in respiratory compliance. In his response to our Editorial, Dr. Rajendram reveals a curious misinterpretation of our Editorial: "Thus, whilst the net effect of the ARDSNet protocol is beneficial at the level of the study population, theoretically, it may harm select patients… contrary to the opinions of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, and Bos and colleagues, the ARDSNet protocol is not a panacea." Putting aside the wishful thinking of a supportive intervention functioning as a "panacea" for a condition with persistent mortality of 30-40%, the correspondent (along with Drs. Cherian et al.) seems to think that we dispute the heterogeneity of ARDS, and advocate for a "one-size-fits-all" approach to its clinical management.	./cache/cord-012010-5h2ox3hu.txt	./txt/cord-012010-5h2ox3hu.txt