17/n But there's an even bigger issue here Some of these numbers are almost certainly wrong
-
-
28/n The results show you what I'm talking about There is NO WAY that searching with those search terms gets you only 23 studies Even just plugging in the search terms to PubMed gives you >100 studiespic.twitter.com/73Qn7v1x9u
Show this thread -
29/n It took me less than 5 minutes to find a study that matches the inclusion criteria but was not included That's...worrying
Show this thread -
30/n On top of that, in some cases the authors have included older versions of the included studies That's less than ideal (newer versions CORRECT mistakes!)
Show this thread -
31/n There is so much more I could look at here, but honestly you have to stop somewhere This study is riddled with flaws and almost certainly does not present an accurate estimate of the effect of HCQ or CQ
Show this thread -
32/n If you want a decent summation of the evidence for/against HCQ, a good source is CEBM: "Current data do not support the use of hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis or treatment of COVID-19"https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/hydroxychloroquine-for-covid-19-what-do-the-clinical-trials-tell-us/ …
Show this thread -
33/n I forgot to mention, the paper was received, revised, and accepted within a month While not unheard of, that's very quick for academic publishing!pic.twitter.com/UgR3WO2BPB
Show this thread -
34/n In summation, the paper: - inadequately rates risk of bias - inappropriately combines estimates... - ...that may have been miscalculated It is hard to know what to make of this, except to say that the paper itself is not very useful in any way
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.