First off, I would start by just throwing out any observational study that isn't heavily controlled for potential confounds. Maybe keep ICON. That one was decent. Second, throw out anything with suspicious round numbers and suspiciously large claimed N.
Well, I have actually had a read of the first of those and even from a brief skim it appears to mischaracterize observational evidence as RCTs and not adequately represent the state of the evidence
-
-
And I cannot see a single RCT that is of even reasonably good quality summarized there. Nor even a relatively strong observational study. Just the same kind of useless evidence that was so prevalent for HCQ earlier
-
ICON is a fairly strong observational study, as noted already. I am not sure why you are ignoring everything I respond with.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
The summary is not limited to RCTs. I was trying to provide a reference to the overall state of clinical literature on ivermectin in COVID-19. If you noticed above, I already argued against considering most observational studies.
-
The overall state is that most of the studies are not designed to give us useful information, and that they don't. I have said this many times before
- Show replies
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.