Re Cochrane review link
"Main results
We found 14 studies with 1678 participants investigating ivermectin compared to no treatment, placebo, or standard of care. No study compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. There were nine studies treating participants with moderate COVID‐19 in inpatient settings and four treating mild COVID‐19 cases in outpatient settings. One study investigated ivermectin for prevention of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Eight studies had an open‐label design, six were double‐blind and placebo‐controlled. Of the 41 study results contributed by included studies, about one third were at overall high risk of bias.
Ivermectin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies.
We identified 31 ongoing and 18 studies awaiting classification until publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies."
Instead of writing "Of the 41 study results contributed by included studies, about one third were at overall high risk of bias.", I wonder why they just didn't spit out a number, like 13 or 14, and then tell us how the 13 or 14 studies broke down into the inpatient/outpatient categories. That would be inportant information to know. I don't know if "41" in the above is a typo for "14" or if the 14 studies they used somehow incorporated ("contributed by", whatever that means) the results of 41 other studies of which "about one third were at overall high risk of bias". Anyway...
"Ivermectin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies."
I suspect that doses and treatment duration are very important metrics to assess when trying to gauge the efficacy of of a drug. And yet, the authors apparently blindly forged ahead with their study unaware (?) that their conclusions would surely be affected by those variables.
"We identified 31 ongoing and 18 studies awaiting classification until publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies."
Great find, one of monumental proportions. So glad they included that declaration.
"Authors' conclusions
Based on the current very low‐ to low‐certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID‐19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID‐19 outside of well‐designed randomized trials."
From the above:
"The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality."
And yet those studies appear to be "the reliable evidence " on which the authors base thier conclusions. Gotcha.
I rate the paper "F". (There are other problems, too, but why bother beating a dead horse?)