20/n That being said, I quickly redid the meta-analysis excluding these two quite weird studies, and the results completely change, with no significance at all (RR 0.72, 0.41-1.25) Make of that what you willpic.twitter.com/8ucUe40gq3
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
Hi, you can read it here: This new systematic review/meta-analysis of ivermectin for COVID-19… https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1407140602009985025.html … Enjoy :) 
TLDR?
Mortality is not the only outcome, he have more statistical power and good evidence on viral load and hospitalizations.
It depends what you think the role of a reviewer/meta-analyser is. If you think they are entitled to assess the methodology as described and rely on quality of peer review, yes. If you think they should be interrogating each study for signs of fraud, no.
So many of these studies (mainly the preprints showing strong results) pretty clearly have distributions not consistent with experimentally derived data.
I agree that RoB are always the degree of freedom in meta-analyzes. We have seen this many times before.
Not sure I get this. If the claims in the conclusion are not supported by the data, how can the study be "pretty strong"?
The methodology is well done, but I disagree with the interpretation of the data and thus the conclusions. I suppose you could argue that it's not strong in terms of interpretation, but that's more my opinion than a fact
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.