9/n This is apparently an observational trial where people were allocated by a non-random method to take ivermectin or not, but there's no data on what that method was, no information on any potential confounders, and really just no information at allpic.twitter.com/fZuAJd4qVH
-
-
20/n Given that the graphical and written representations of the primary outcome of the study appear to conflict, and the results tables differ between the pre-registration and the publication, it is worth asking whether this study even took place at all
Show this thread -
20.5/n If this study did occur, which record is right - the graphs? The pre-registration? Are none of the numbers correct?
Show this thread -
21/n This adds to the long and growing list of concerns about ivermectin literature. It is extremely worrisome that studies like this have been cited multiple times and referenced as evidence for benefit
Show this thread -
22/n I'm not saying that this research was fraudulent, but what I will say is that I do not see how anyone who read this paper could've cited it as a resource for anything because the issues are...numerous According to Google Scholar, cited 22 times
Show this thread -
23/n update. This is a very bad sign. Authors refusing to communicate and share data is a very common feature of scientific fraud (i.e. Surgisphere)https://twitter.com/K_Sheldrick/status/1421795122291777537?s=19 …
Show this thread -
24/n it is often impossible to know if a study is fraudulent or not, but regardless until the lead author shares anonymised patient data we are forced to treat this study as if it was Hopefully we get the data
Show this thread -
25/n The full story on this paper is now out, and it's extremely concerninghttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1433555208211079171?s=20 …
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.
