33/n If the authors do indeed want to make this into a reasonably adequate analysis, there are a few steps: 1. Separate treatment outcomes (i.e. analyze ONLY deaths in a model) 2. Rate QUALITY of included literature (i.e. don't aggregate trash with decent studies)
-
-
44/n Well, in the ivermectin groups (there were two of them), of those who had a fever at the start of the treatment in one group everyone recovered. In the placebo group, 3 people still had a fever at day 5pic.twitter.com/L28viBtMOY
Show this thread -
45/n Now, obviously this contradicts ivm meta's stated methodology - they should use hospitalization length which is more severe than reported symptoms - but it's also quite funny because they've even excluded ONE OF THE IVERMECTIN GROUPS
Show this thread -
46/n In reality, this trial should have a point estimate above 1, because in this trial people treated with ivermectin stayed (non-significantly) longer in hospital than the placebo group, but the website is only interested in promoting ivermectin, not factspic.twitter.com/bDBVOuq0KC
Show this thread -
47/n You can even see just how dishonest this website is when looking at cough. It's debatable whether cough is more severe than fever, because there's no assessment in the paper, but the placebo group did better than ivermectin in this trial on cough (p=0.15)pic.twitter.com/0qfHZbtXKp
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.