Review of clinical trials of ivermectin for COVID-19 (part 2) by Satochi Omura's team: jstage.jst.go.jp/article/antibi… A comprehensive review of clinical research on the subject with interesting discussions on problematic clinical trials and meta-analyses. 1/n
➖The authors noted that since omicron variant which is milder (disease staying in the upper respiratory tract), it's more difficult to demonstrate efficacy of drugs (not only ivermectin) in a placebo controlled trial. 2/n
➖Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses are published leading to contradictory results based on methods and inclusion criteria used. They noticed a tendency to denigrate clinical trials and meta-analysis results conducted by other groups. 3/n
➖The validity of the Cochrane review by Popp et al. is questioned, due to protocol changes between both versions, leading the authors to include less studies in the updated review than in the original one. 4/n
➖Similarly, the often-cited Roman et al. meta-analysis, which contains errors (NDLR: still some unfixed errors in the published paper) in the preprint and the conclusion of the published article was unchanged after one major error was fixed, leading to very different result. 5/n
➖The RCTs published in high IF journals are "problematic studies, with errors in protocol design, blinding, placebo setting, protocol violations and modifications during the study" and "how papers are written. The authors will address it in a forthcoming article.😉 6/n