15/n Worth noting that I don't disagree with the assessment for every study - I had a detailed read of Mahmud (2020) and it looks like a very well-done piece of research at a low risk of biaspic.twitter.com/Esr9s7DnC9
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
26/n On top of this, if you only look at studies that the authors have rated as having a low risk of bias for all domains, the evidence is pretty much squarely null, although this is limited by the fact that there are only 3 good studies
27/n I don't think that this study really supports the use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial, which is a shame because it'd be fantastic to have another effective drug for the disease
28/n The depressing thing is that 100s of millions of people, mostly in developing countries, have had ivermectin for COVID-19, and yet we've only got 3 low-risk studies with <700 participants total to use as good evidence 


29/n Oh, one other point is that the authors considered the Fonseca study an "outlier" because exclusion lowered the I^2, which I don't understand because excluding the Elgazzar study lowers the I^2 a lot as well
pic.twitter.com/49WMIzgXWe
30/n Also, I should reiterate that while I disagree with the conclusions, the study itself is pretty strong. The methodology was well constructed, I have few if any criticisms of the actual research the authors conducted
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.