5/n Step 1: replicate the findings While there are very minor differences due to the statistical software used, this is the same Dersimonian-Laird IV model run using the metan command in Stata 15pic.twitter.com/TZOgZtAtNb
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
16/n What does this all mean? In short - once Elgazzar is excluded, the results are incredibly uncertain, and any potential benefit rests entirely on the Niaee study, which at least one expert has argued should never be included in meta-analyses
17/n Moreover, because the result is so marginally significant, including a ~single~ new piece of evidence also results in the benefit disappearing even if you still include Niaee in the model
18/n Therefore, in my opinion, this means that excluding Elgazzar removes any certainty and a lot of significance from this analysis
19/n In other words the conclusion - that moderate-certainty evidence found large reductions in death using ivermectin - is entirely reversed. The certainty is gone, and the reduction in death is likely to be very substantially smaller
20/n Indeed, since the benefit now appears to rest entirely on one very worrisome trial, it is hard to see how we can justify any argument other than that we do not have sufficient information to make a conclusion about ivermectin at this pointpic.twitter.com/39xLhAewpi
21/n I remain optimistic that ivermectin will indeed prove to be a "wonder drug" as Elgazzar claimed, but I simply don't think the evidence to date supports that assertion 
22/n With large randomized trials ongoing, we can only wait for them to finish before making a strong judgement as to whether ivermectin is beneficial It may yet turn out to be fantastic. We simply do not know
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.