6/n The benefit from this model is huge, very statistically significant, and you can see why the authors made such strong recommendations. There is a significant benefit for mild disease, verging on significance for severe, and overall 60% (!) reduction in death
-
-
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
Show this thread -
18/n Therefore, in my opinion, this means that excluding Elgazzar removes any certainty and a lot of significance from this analysis
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread
End of conversation
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.
