21/n Even if you ignore my opinions, limiting the analysis to only studies rated BY THE AUTHORS as "low" risk of bias gives you a completely inconclusive result (RR 0.65, 0.12-3.59) 
-
Show this thread
-
22/n So I don't really have an issue with the methodology or the results of the study, except to say that I think the risk of bias here is generally quite high and publication bias is likely The conclusions however...
1 reply 2 retweets 42 likesShow this thread -
23/n I don't think this is justified at all to be honest. Even if we ignore the issues that I mentioned in this thread, most of these studies are really short (probably because they're all preprints) containing only a fraction of the information you need to properly assess thempic.twitter.com/8tX77GMESA
1 reply 6 retweets 46 likesShow this thread -
24/n There's a good reason the risk of bias for so many regions here is 'unclear' - the studies simply don't include enough information! Often the methods sections are 3-4 paragraphs long (v. short for an RCT)pic.twitter.com/8AP18DKtD2
2 replies 2 retweets 33 likesShow this thread -
25/n Moreover, publication bias looks to be a bit of an issue, and it's not really addressed. Quite likely to be some null findings that are floating around but will be published eventually!
1 reply 1 retweet 28 likesShow this thread -
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
3 replies 4 retweets 33 likesShow this thread -
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
4 replies 7 retweets 74 likesShow this thread -
-
Replying to @RealIvermectin
That was excluded from this review because it is not an RCT I believe
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Oh no my dude, Chamie and Chamie et al are cited in Bryant et al.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
They're cited as background in the discussion, but not included in the SR or MA - here's the selection criteria that made them ineligiblepic.twitter.com/Vu3imSi22F
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.