Yes, I think you are right that 20+ patients recruited in 4...

Yes, I think you are right that 20+ patients recruited in 4 weeks from site listed as starting recruitment.

That would fit with the submission details provided at the bottom of the Journal of Surgical Research article “Received 2020 May 28; Revised 2020 Jun 18; Accepted 2020 Jun 20.”

28th April - USC site recruiting (clinical trials.gov)
3rd May - Dr Bowdish rounding ICU recruiting every day (blog)
28th May - Just over 4 weeks has passed and article submitted saying 20+ participants in 4 weeks (assuming this wasn’t added/changed in the revision on 18th June)
16th July - 30 participants at USC (Michael Bowdish blog)

I’m curious at the exact 30 number. He didn’t saying around or over, he said “we have now enrolled 30 patients”. Could it be that that is the maximum allocation for that site, and at least that site is fully recruited? The tone is suggestive of a ‘we did it, our hard work has paid off and thanks to everyone who made this happen’ type message.

If anything like this type of pace was happening at other sites, we may even be basically at full enrolment? With the 30 day wait from dosing to main data point, it isn’t impossible that we could reach full enrolment before the 30% at 30 days analysis has been completed.

Oh, it looks like the blog entry has been taken down. I wonder if he got told off for releasing recruitment status information on the trial without authorisation.