FIND A SOLUTION AT Academic Writers Bay
1 Research Project Planning Katrina Collazo de Armas Florida National University Nursing Research 02/12/2022 2 Research Project Planning 1. Brief literature review Under traditional knowledge, effective projects need meticulous preparation and analysis. Reduce risk and boost project success by dedicating time to these tasks. Poor planning and analysis may lead to an unsuccessful project. Trillions of dollars may have been squandered due to unsuccessful initiatives resulting from poor planning. It is a part of their philosophy that less planning is better and that an evolutionary process is more efficient in COVID-related pneumonia. Up-front planning does not seem to be a priority in agile techniques. It’s also common in health sector to suffer from “analytical paralysis.” Analyzing so much that no real work is done or begun much later than optimal constitutes this kind of situation. Because so much time is spent researching and analyzing each project, it’s worth looking at the researchers. Forty-two procedures, including 20 planning processes, require a project planning on COVID pneumonia. A research project planning is expected to complete about 48% of all project management tasks over its life cycle due to planning procedures (Halkjelsvik #038; Jørgensen, 2018). However, a more in-depth approach to planning is not always preferred by those who use agile methodologies. When planning and analysis consume half of the project’s money and time, does this help the project or make it more expensive. Over-planning might be connected with bad project outcomes. Researchers and practitioners are interested in the optimal amount of planning work and its relation to success of COVID-related pneumonia. As a guide for determining project structure and timetables, it is useful to researchers since it speaks to the basic features of projects. 2. Methodology and design of the study 3 Research project planning and perceived overall project success are examined from a postpositivist perspective in this work. Post-positivism is a bridge between positivism and phenomenology, where all experience is subjective. Perception and observation are prone to bias; thus, the findings can’t be completely objective. Some notions, such as project success, may not be quantified and are influenced by the participants’ subjective perceptions and sponsors. The epistemological approach will thus be post-positivism. When it comes to COVID-related pneumonia, positivism can’t disclose the complete truth. However, its findings may still be valuable. It was possible to complete the available literature since it is diverse but not too long (Allahar, 2019). The first step in the inquiry was to do comprehensive Google Scholar searches. After this last step, we went back and looked at all of the literature’s references and added any pertinent ones to our list of sources. There is a shortage of study in project management since it has been referred to as an immature discipline. Searches for research on planning and project success were widened when the number of studies explicitly examining planning effort or completeness and project success was found to be limited. There is no way to characterize this endeavor as exhausting yet. 3. Sling methodology Simple sling method Everyone in the population has an equal chance of getting picked in research project planning since each person is selected purely by random. As the method suggest, researcher may allot every individual in a populace an individual number and then select which people to embrace in the sle by means of a table of random statistics on COVID-related lung diseases. 4 Sle fault may be premeditated, and assortment bias is reduced by means of a basic random sling technique. The furthermost understandable benefit is the humblest sling procedure for a large resident. If that characteristic is unusual, you may not choose enough people who share your trait of interest, which is a drawback of using basic random sling. A complete sling setting may also be problematic to create. It might be hard to contact them, predominantly if numerous kinds of contact are necessary and your sle units are spread over a huge topographical section (Beratan, 2020). Systematic sling The sle frame is used to choose individuals to be studied regularly randomly. The sle size is ensured by selecting the intervals. It is typically easier to give a systematic sle than a random sle, and it is less time-consuming. However, prejudice may result if, for exle, the instruction of the societies in the sle edge has primary designs. Sling approach corresponds through the cyclicity of the fundamental design. Selecting an even interlude would result in a sle of all children having COVID-related lung diseases, which is not what the researchers are looking to find. Stratified sling Firstly, a trait shared by all of the subgroups in the population is used to narrow the scope of the study. If we anticipate the measurement of interest to differ across subgroups, we employ this method to guarantee a representative sle from each of them. Research of stroke outcomes, for exle, might be stratified based on gender to ensure that men and women are equally represented. Equal sles are then taken from each stratum to generate the explore sle. When using class-conscious sling, non-equal model scopes may also remain suitable. Reducing 5 sle unfairness by laminated sling increases the accurateness and representativeness of the discoveries to stratify COVID-pneumonia illnesses. You must have a good understanding of the sle frame’s features, which might be challenging. Clustered sling The sling unit in a collected sle contains more than just individuals. Research subjects are randomly selected from the general community to form “groupings” for the study. All individuals of the chosen clusters are included in the study when using a clustering sling strategy. Next, each pile is given a random selection of individuals included in the sling. When doing an assessment, it is essential to take into account clustering. While representative sle has its place in research, it may not be as successful in different studies that cover multiple cities or nations. For instance, it is easier to reach a huge number of persons having COVID-pneumonia illnesses in a few medic practices than a small number of people in a large number of medic offices. Sling process has a number of problems, including the risk of complications if the cluster selected aren’t representative of the general population. 4. Necessary tools Gantt Chart In research project planning, a Gantt chart is a well-known and often used bar chart for tracking activities over time. Since its beginnings, tracking time and interdependencies across activities have been a standard practice among researchers. Gantt charts have gained widespread acceptance since they were originally introduced. Useful for organizing research projects planning, these diagrams depict the stages, activities and milestones that need to be completed together with 6 the resources required to do them (O’Donoghue, 2018). They’re a fantastic way to show off the full project COVID-pneumonia illnesses. Logic Network It is possible to see how a research project planning’s activities have progressed over time by looking at a Logic Network. What is logically before or after another action is shown. The length of the project may be estimated by taking into account the time spent on each task. The essential route and milestones of a project may be identified with the help of this tool. The research project planning’s timetable, process, and dependencies will become clearer as a result of COVIDpneumonia illnesses. These methods may uncover facts that would have otherwise gone unnoticed. PERT Chart Analysis of the research project planning’s tasks using PERT, including the time necessary to accomplish each work and how long it will take to finish the project as a whole, is an important part of PERT. Product Breakdown Structure Developing a Product Breakdown Structure (PBS) is part of the research project planning process, which involves adopting product-based planning. Product Breakdown Structures are useful in clarifying the research project’s deliverables and may assist in constructing a Work Breakdown Structure. Work Breakdown Structure The deliverables required to fulfill a research project planning are decomposed hierarchically using a Work Breakdown Structure. The deliverables are divided into manageable 7 work packages, then planned, allocated to individuals, and given a price tag. The standard research project planning tool, the Work Breakdown Structure, provides the foundation for many projects relating COVID-related pneumonia illness. 5. Any algorithms or flow maps created. Flowchart If a researcher is working on a research project planning, a good flowchart may help break down complex concepts into smaller, more manageable chunks that can be represented graphically (Buchholtz, 2019). Because images are often simpler to comprehend than words, knowing how to flowchart is an asset when reaching out to a wide range of stakeholders and COVID-related pneumonia patients. As a result, flowcharts are useful in the commercial world and more technical ones like manufacturing and software development. 8 References Allahar, H. (2019). A management innovation approach to project planning. Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(6). Beratan, K. (2020). Application of intervention design concepts to project planning for collaborative adaptive management of natural resources. Ecology and Society, 25(1). Buchholtz, N. (2019). Planning and conducting mixed methods studies in mathematics educational research. Compendium for early career researchers in mathematics education, 131-152. Halkjelsvik, T., #038; Jørgensen, M. (2018). Time Predictions: Understanding and Avoiding Unrealism in Project Planning and Everyday Life (p. 110). Springer Nature. O’Donoghue, T. (2018). Planning your qualitative research thesis and project: An introduction to interpretivist research in education and the social sciences. Routledge. 1 RUNNING HEADER: PHASE 3 Phase 3-Evaluation of a research study Katrina Collazo de Armas Florida National University Nursing Research and Evidence Based-DL-MSN Nora Hernandez-Pupo March 2, 2022 2 PHASE 3 Research plays a fundamental role in enhancing knowledge and providing answers to various societal problems. Different forms of research are distinguished by the approach and the researcher’s orientation towards the research problem. This paper analyses the article by Tunnecliff et al. (2016), identifying whether the authors formulated appropriate research questions, their orientation towards the research questions, and the essentials represented by the authors. In addition, the paper identifies the strengths and limitations of the study and the contribution of the study towards understanding research methods and modalities. The authors have formulated appropriate research questions based on the problem of the study. The authors identify that social media can rapidly connect clinicians and researchers from diverse disciples, areas of expertise, and regions making it an ideal medium for sharing knowledge and promoting education (Tunnecliff et al., 2016). The researchers also acknowledged that using social media in exchanging knowledge may develop skills, increase health professionals’ knowledge, promote change in clinical practice, and lead to positive learning experiences. However, the authors identify a need for studies to determine the relative effectiveness of different social media platforms in sharing knowledge on health and clinical practice. The researchers identify Twitter and Facebook as their primary areas to address the research problem. Twitter and Facebook are the most interactive and informative social media platforms with billions of users across the globe, making them a perfect choice for the study. The authors formulated two research questions that are appropriate and relevant to the research problem. The first question aimed to determine whether the research information delivered by Facebook or Twitter would result in more remarkable changes in the practice of health professionals and research-informed knowledge. Additionally, the authors aimed to determine the engagement and behavior of participants with the two mediums (Tunnecliff et al., 2016). 3 PHASE 3 The research questions are clearly defined because they directly address the studied problem. The researchers identify Twitter and Facebook in terms of relevance because they are widely used. Unlike other social media platforms, Twitter and Facebook involve a lot of written messages than pictures and videos. The two platforms are also widely used by organizations and professionals. In addition, they promote user interactions and sharing of Web links, text, and videos. Besides, the authors rely on the popularity of Twitter and Facebook as a potential reason for communicating research information. In addition, the researchers determine that the chosen social media platforms promote massive interactions because of the vast number of subscribers. Therefore, the research questions are relevant to the study problem because they seek to solve the issue being studied. In addition, the authors’ orientations towards the research issue are interpretation-based. The authors conducted primary research to acquire first-hand information from the participants. Throughout the research, researchers have not used secondary data to derive conclusions. The authors used primary data acquired through online surveys to derive conclusions for this study. The author also provided written and video instructions to participants to aid the survey (Tunnecliff et al., 2016). The researcher then interpreted the results to conclude the study problem, using the interpretation-based approach rather than a critical analysis. In contrast, critical analysis involves a detailed evaluation and examination of another individual’s work or ideas. It is a subjective type of study that expresses an individual’s secondary data analysis, breaking it down to arrive at a conclusion. Therefore, critical analysis is based on secondary data obtained from other sources such are journals, studies, interviews, and surveys conducted by other people. The study has contributed immensely to my understanding of possible research methods and modalities. I learned how to apply mixed methods when interpreting a topic that involves both qualitative and quantitative data. The researchers used an open-label randomized 4 PHASE 3 comparative design with a mixed-method approach to collecting and analysing data. The researchers conducted a survey using online and mail data collection modalities. I also learned that researchers in cope and relevance must clearly define research questions to solve the research problem. In this case, the research questions formulated by the researchers played an essential role in simplifying the study and solving the research problem. Therefore, research questions guide a study, which determines a researcher’s conclusions at the end of the study. Furthermore, the study enlightened me effective research outline that showcases the problem, aim, intervention, and solution. From the research problem, the researchers were able to formulate study questions. The study questions guided them through data collection and analysis. The researchers then used the analysis results to interpret the research issue. Researchers also made conclusions based on the research questions, and the study followed a standard format that allows readers to understand the aim of the study. The study had several strengths that promote its credibility and reliability. First, the study involved a large sle size with participants from any field, including podiatry, physiotherapy, and medicine, which allows the generalization of results and conclusions (Tunnecliff et al., 2016). In addition, the study was also able to answer the research questions. The researchers determined that research information relayed by either Facebook or Twitter can promote behavioral change among health professionals and improve clinical knowledge. Additionally, the interaction on Twitter was found to be beneficial because short messages are helpful to busy healthcare workers. The study is reliable because it involved firsthand or primary data. Furthermore, the researchers confirmed their hypothesis that social media can contribute significantly to sharing healthcare knowledge and clinical practice research. In their conclusion, the researchers demonstrated that clinicians could deliver research information and healthcare knowledge via social media (Tunnecliff et al., 2016). The studied platforms, 5 PHASE 3 Twitter and Facebook, also demonstrated the potential of improving clinical knowledge by linking different healthcare professionals. The research also turned out to be consistent with existing literature indicating that social media and web-based programs are helpful learning tools. However, the study had several limitations that might have hindered its quality and reliability. The baseline measures of the study were collected by researchers soon after randomization of sles, potentially resulting in bias. Researchers anonymously conducted participant assessment which hindered randomization after finalizing of baseline measures. In addition, the study did not have a control group to determine whether the interventions were equally impactful if delivered via text or mail (Tunnecliff et al., 2016). The research focused on comparing social media modalities and the advantages and drawbacks of each platform. However, the participants on Twitter were more inclined to participate in has a statistically higher baseline score for knowledge related to supplementary information. Furthermore, an error occurred during the research that resulted in five participants on Twitter obtaining both Facebook and Twitter course information. However, the researchers indicated that the impact was minimal because only a small number of participants were affected, which unlikely impacted the study results. Additionally, both Twitter and Facebook are publicly accessible, and participants were not requested to keep group information and allocation confidential. Therefore, the groups might not have been mutually exclusive. There was also a risk of other people besides participants interacting on the sites because they are open to access. It is also noted by researchers in their conclusion that the higher attrition rate might have resulted in attrition bias even though the attrition rates were not abnormal. Collaboration and inter-professional communication is one of professional practices represented in the article. The authors define social media as a collection of web-based tech that 6 PHASE 3 shares a user-focused approach to functionality and design. Users can share information and communicate inter-professional on the identified social media platforms. The authors have represented collaboration and inter-professional communication because it plays a significant role in sharing skills and knowledge when health professionals communicate with each other, the broader community, and patients in a responsible, collaborative, and transparent way (Tunnecliff et al., 2016). In addition, the authors also represent e-professionalism and its influence on clinicians’ willingness to participate in knowledge sharing. Social media hint that social media may provide a low-cost method of knowledge sharing and distribution of research. The authors present E-professionalism because it is key to modern professional interaction and growth. Another essential of professional practice is represented in the article is health education. There is a need to share health education and research to improve professional practice and quality of care. Sharing health information builds a concrete background for managing population health and improving disease diagnoses. Lastly, the authors presented evidence-based practice, which is another essential professional practice in healthcare. Existing literature confirms that evidence-based practice is key to improving clinical practice. The authors of the article identify social media as a potential medium for sharing professional knowledge and healthcare knowledge which supports the growth of careers and improves the quality of health delivered to patients. A significant number of healthcare professionals have Twitter and Facebook accounts which they can use for sharing healthcare information (Tunnecliff et al., 2016). The essentials of professional practice mentioned above are, but a few other many others that ensure clinicians can perform in complex healthcare systems. 7 PHASE 3 To sum up, the authors formulated appropriate research questions that directly addressed the issue being studied. The questions are also clearly defined terms of relevance and cope. Additionally, the authors adopt an interpretation-based orientation towards the research problem. Further, the article promotes a greater understanding of formulating research questions and presenting essential issues in a study. Lastly, the study is characterized by several strengths and limitations. For instance, the researchers use a large sle size that allows for the generalization of the results. However, the study is also limited by the lack of a control group, among other drawbacks. 8 PHASE 3 Reference Tunnecliff, J., Weiner, J., Gaida, J., Keating, J., Morgan, P., #038; Ilic, D. et al. (2016). Translating evidence to practice in the health professions: a randomized trial of Twitter vs. Facebook. Journal of The American Medical Informatics Association, 24(2), 403-408. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocw085 1 Phase Four Katrina Collazo de Armas Florida National University Nursing Research and Evidence Based-DL-MSN Nora Hernandez-Pupo 3/19/2022 Phase Four 2 As mentioned in the first phase of this project, COVID 19 causes lasting damage to the lungs of affected patients. Usually, as the virus progress in a person’s body, the risk to contact pneumonia also increases since the patient’s lungs become filled with fluid due to the inflammation. As a result, it hinders respiratory processes as the lungs cannot partake enough oxygen. The lungs do not have the capacity to accommodate oxygen as the lungs are filled with fluids thereby causing shortness of breath. COVID 19 pneumonia may cause severe breathing complications for some individuals to the extent of requiring use of a ventilator or medical attention. This project proposes remdesivir antiviral therapy as an intervention strategy to curb the alarming and problematic prevalence of COVID 19 pneumonia within the society. According to Taha et al. (2021), Gilead Sciences developed Remdesivir as an antiviral drug after an intensive study that commenced in 2009 to originally aim respiratory syncytial virus and hepatitis C virus. Their studies showed that Remdesivir had a wide spectrum antiviral activity by preventing replication of different Ribonucleic acid (RNA) viruses including filoviruses and coronaviruses (Amirian, 2020). This paper aims at determining how Remdesivir antiviral therapy help in reducing complications resulting from COVID related pneumonia. It will specifically explore how Remdesivir antiviral therapy interfere with the enzymes responsible for replicating the corona virus RNA. It will also determine how it helps in conserving scarce healthcare resources during pandemic. Results In the study population, among the patients assigned to receive treatment that is remdevisir, fifteen percent had mild to moderate disease while eighty five percent were in the acute stage. Beigel et al. (2020) report that the patients’ mean age was 58.9 years and 64.4 per cent were male. Moreover, most of the patients had two or more underlying conditions including 3 type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, and hypertension. Most of the patients were in a severe state during admission. Male gender predominance varied between studies, ranging from 56.3 per cent to 75.4 per cent, and comorbidities including hypertension (24.5 per cent to 50 per cent) and diabetes (8.6 per cent to 30.6 per cent) differed. In the trials, corticosteroids, antivirals, antibiotics, and support therapy were delivered concurrently according to each hospital’s guidelines. In a patient population with severe COVID 19 with an oxygen saturation of ≤ ninety four per cent and pneumonia, more than a half showed clinical improvements after administration of Remdevisir antiviral. While the remdevisir did not show any effect on period of hospital admission, length of oxygen therapy, viral load, mortality rate and the time to clinical improvement, patients who received remdevisir had a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation and showed faster clinical improvements (Taha et al., 2021). The study also compared remdevisir and placebo for ten days in a randomized sle of hospitalized adult patients. The study showed that with remdevisir, the median time to recovery was four days with placebo compared to remdevisir having fifteen and eleven days of recovery respectively. Additionally, in the remdevisir group, the fourteen day mortality was lower (Richardson et al., 2020). According to Beigel et al. (2020), patients receiving remdevisir, had a short recovery period with a ninety five percent confidence interval and 1.29 recovery rate ration. For patients in the chronic stratum, the median time for recovery for patients receiving remdesivir was eleven days. In a different test to compare ten vs random five days of remdevisir in patients with chronic COVID 19, the study discovered that there was no significant difference in improvement in clinical condition. These results implied that five days of therapy were enough for patients 4 with chronic disease (Richardson et al., 2020). Remdesivir was found to have a 4-day shorter median recovery time and a 4.8 percent lower death rate than the placebo in the trial. The contradictory results could be attributed to the severity of the patients who were participated in the previous trial, who were substantially more severe. Researchers reported overall clinical improvement and oxygenation in 68 percent of patients who took remdesivir on a compassionate use basis in another study. Remdesivir was linked to good clinical improvement and the termination of oxygen support in a case report of the first COVID-19 patient in the United States. The Food and Drug Administration recently approved the use of remdesivir as an emergency therapy for COVID-19. Hundreds of COVID-19 patients in the United States and Europe are already getting remdesivir as an antiviral medication. Still, due to its unproven efficacy and safety, remdesivir has to be investigated further in larger-scale, randomized, controlled clinical trials. According to Beigel et al. (2020), remdesivir antiviral therapy prevents the respiratory disease’s progression and lower incidences new oxygen use among patients who were not receiving oxygen at the time of admission. Studies have shown that patients can tolerate remdesivir with common negative effects such as hyperglacaemia, impaired renal function, deranged liver function tests and respiratory failure in instances such as COVID 19 (Richardson et al., 2020). Taha et al. (2021) explain that Remdesivir is an adenosine nucleotide analog prodrug metabolized to nucleoside monophosphate then phosphorylated to nucleoside triphosphate derivative. They add that the nucleoside triphosphate derivative competes with the native adenosine triphosphate (ATP) for utilization by the viral RNA dependent RNA-polymerase (RdRp) 5 Richardson et al. (2020) explains that due to the identified benefits of remdesivir antiviral therapy, the reduction in time may have an effect on reduction of hospital bed requirements especially during the peak of COVID 19. However, it is essential to note that these benefits are modest since it is unclear whether early remdesivir administration in moderate disease may have an impact on transmission, prevent clinical deterioration and hospital admission (Williamson et al., 2020). Additionally, the paper has only demonstrated the intervention’s efficacy narrowly as it has only studied on hospitalized patients and excluded infected patients who do not need enrolment. Limitation of the study There were few RCTs; the study reported 10-day results for the entire group of patients, whereas the other trials compared outcomes over 11 days. One RCT was halted early because an unanticipated interim analysis revealed some adverse events resulting to drug cessation. The study only used two placebo-controlled RCTs for primary and secondary outcomes in our meta-analyses. Mortality-related conclusions, the requirement for intrusive ventilation, and SAEs should be examined cautiously. Whether investigators use six- or seven-point scales, there is no accepted minimum clinically relevant difference. The RCTs consisted patients who received treatment within ten days of the onset of symptoms. Remdesivir’s antiviral effectiveness should be highest immediately after active viral multiplication, as evidenced by monkey research in which early remdesivir therapy prevented SARS-CoV-2 inoculation-induced pneumonia (Ko et al., 2020). Using a time-dependent propensity score system, researchers created matched sets of patients with highly similar confounders. On the other hand, unmeasured variables could have skewed our treatment impact estimates. 6 Because of a possibility that the effevtiveness of COVID-19 patient care improved over time health system expertise, the study focused the scope to a matched control group to the period when remdesivir was accessible. The study needed controls to stay in the hospital for the same time as remdesivir-treated patients, but not more than five days. It was a predetermined study design to limit or get rid of bias from matching controls with varying degrees of disease rigorousness, which measurement confounders failed to control. The findings, however, were sensitive to reducing this constraint to less than three days. This strategy is similar to ACTT-1, which let off COVID-19 patients expected to leave the hospital in three days time following randomization. Within five days of admission, 596 of the mismatched control patients had their result, 97 per cent allowed to leave hospital. As a result, the matching task cannot bring about biased results favouring the null hypothesis. There was a trend showing reduced mortality rates after using remdesivir treatment similar to that seen in ACTT-1, although neither study’s outcome was statistically significant. 7 Conclusion The FDA has approved Remdesivir to treat COVID-19 patients in hospitals 12 years old or older weighing 40 kg or more. Healthcare facilities that can deliver acute treatment should administer it. Given that it is impossible to thoroughly analyze the benefits and demerits of the intervention in COVID-19 infected patients, the publicly available data is not sufficient to justify its FDA approval. Suppose other remdesivir RCTs vs placebo are terminated and replaced with trials where remdesivir represents the standard of therapy and other investigational medications are added to remdesivir versus remdesivir alone. In that case, there is a risk that themerits and hazards of the intervention will be unclear. Patients who do not participate in corticosteroid therapy and believe that failing to employ an FDA-approved choice is a deficient practice may specifically request remdesivir medication. There are few ly driven and wholly reported RCTs investigating the effectiveness and side effects of remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. One RCT was terminated without explanation. The SIMPLE study had no placebo arm, and the results were disclosed after 11 days. Conclusions from meta-analyses of two trials about overall mortality, the requirement for invasive ventilation, and SAEs should be regarded with caution. Despite the FDA clearance, remdesivir’s clinical efficacy and risk profile must be determined by completing multiple current RCTs. Until more information becomes available, we cannot conclude that remdesivir effectively treats COVID-19. 8 References Amirian, E. S., #038; Levy, J. K. (2020). Current knowledge about the antivirals remdesivir (GS-5734) and GS-441524 as therapeutic options for coronaviruses. One health, 9, 100128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2020.100128 Beigel, J. H., Tomashek, K. M., Dodd, L. E., Mehta, A. K., Zingman, B. S., Kalil, A. C., … #038; Lane, H. C. (2020). Remdesivir for the treatment of Covid-19. New England Journal of Medicine, 383(19), 1813-1826. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764 Ko, W. C., Rolain, J. M., Lee, N. Y., Chen, P. L., Huang, C. T., Lee, P. I., #038; Hsueh, P. R. (2020). Arguments in favour of remdesivir for treating SARS-CoV-2 infections. International journal of antimicrobial agents, 55(4), 105933. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.ijantimicag.2020.105933 Richardson, C., Bhagani, S., #038; Pollara, G. (2020). Antiviral treatment for COVID-19: the evidence supporting remdesivir. Clinical Medicine, 20(6), e215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmed.2020-0524 Taha, H. R., Keewan, N., Slati, F., #038; Al-Sawalha, N. A. (2021). Remdesivir: a closer look at its effect in COVID-19 pandemic. Pharmacology, 106(9-10), 462-468. https://doi.org/10.1159/000518440 Williamson, B. N., Feldmann, F., Schwarz, B., Meade-White, K., Porter, D. P., Schulz, J., … #038; De Wit, E. (2020). Clinical benefit of remdesivir in rhesus macaques infected with SARS-CoV2. Nature, 585(7824), 273-276. doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2423-5
- WE OFFER THE BEST CUSTOM PAPER WRITING SERVICES. WE HAVE DONE THIS QUESTION BEFORE, WE CAN ALSO DO IT FOR YOU.
- Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts
- (USA, AUS, UK ; CA PhD. Writers)
- CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS
QUALITY: ORIGINAL PAPER – NO PLAGIARISM - CUSTOM PAPER
- non-plagiarized Papers
- 24/7 /365 Service Available
- Affordable Prices
- Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
- Will complete your papers in 6 hours
- On-time Delivery
- Money-back and Privacy guarantees
- Unlimited Amendments upon request
- Satisfaction guarantee
How It Works
- Click on the “Place Your Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
- Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
- Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
- Click “CREATE ACCOUNT ; SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
- From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.
AcademicWritersBay.comnbsp;is an easy-to-use and reliable service that is ready to assist you with your papers 24/7/ 365days a year. 99% of our customers are happy with their papers. Our team is efficient and will always tackle your essay needs comprehensively assuring you of excellent results. Feel free to ask them anything concerning your essay demands or Order.
AcademicWritersBay.com is a private company that offers academic support and assistance to students at all levels. Our mission is to provide proficient andnbsp;high quality academic servicesnbsp;to our highly esteemed clients. AcademicWritersBay.com is equipped with competent andnbsp;proficient writersnbsp;to tackle all types of your academic needs, and provide you with excellent results. Most of our writers are holders ofnbsp;master's degreesnbsp;ornbsp;PhDs, which is an surety of excellent results to our clients. We provide assistance to students all over the world.
We provide high quality term papers, research papers, essays, proposals, theses and many others. Atnbsp;AcademicWritersBay.com, you can be sure ofnbsp;excellent gradesnbsp;in your assignments and final exams.