The two you posted from the NEJOM. And I don’t have concern, I’m just looking for someone in the medical field to educate me on the data, and what is considered typical and what might be considered abbreviated for expediency. So, for example, when you see that population (i.e. 2,000-3,000) does it cause you any pause because maybe it’s a little (or a lot) smaller than what you expected to see? Or does it pretty much align with your expectations?
There isn't a typical number. You can have a trial with 50,000 people but if they are looking for something that is extremely rare (such as aspirating food when you are going under anesthesia) then 50,000 might not be enough. But, if you are looking for something with a more frequent rate (in the safety study they chose 0.25%) then it should be picked up with fewer cases. Some studies looking for effect will have 50 people. Let's say you want to randomize to see if there is a difference in given fluid X or fluid Y after a gunshot to the chest, well, you aren't going to get 10,000 people with a gunshot wound to the chest.
Another example, the Ivermectin studies are as follows:
From Egypt (400 and 200 in control) the largest but RETRACTED as data was falsified
From Iran 70 given and 70 control
ICON Florida charts reviewed retrospectively 173 with Iver and 107 without. Not even a controlled study, just reviewed charts.
Spain (for prevention at disease onset) 24 patients total
There were a few more even smaller.
Other largest Ivermectin study was from Colombia 400 pts. Younger population. Randomized. No difference was found with treatment but cannot extrapolate to older population.
So, point is, if you are going to question small numbers then you really need to question the medication you had been taking. The numbers and study methods are FAR poorer than the ones I posted.