7/n Now, it's perhaps debatable whether these have some concerns or are at very high risk of bias. I think the latter. But I genuinely cannot see how anyone who read the studies could think that they were at low risk of bias
-
-
18/n In the absence of new evidence (this meta-analysis doesn't really count), I reckon that the only reasonable stance is that we don't really know if ivermectin works, and probably should not be using it outside of clinical trials
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If we include that in the mortality meta-analysis, it gets even more impressively nullpic.twitter.com/WBdEW7N5UZ
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
Great work again. I can't wait for the large RCTs to complete and we can see if this dog will hunt.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It seems as if people were running many different variants of a systematic trial and then published the ones that had more interesting results. Shall we call this a meta-publication bias?

-
I honestly think there's something in there
- 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.