RESEARCH
Meta-analyses Are Only As Good As The Studies They Combine: A Lesson Learned From Meta-analyses On Ivermectin Against COVID-19 .
Meta-analyses can be powerful tools, but their conclusions only hold if the studies being combined are appropriate. Using ivermectin research as an example, two meta-analyses published around the same time reached opposite conclusions about whether the drug reduces mortality in COVID-19. One analysis included 15 trials and found a benefit, while the other included only 2 and found no clear effect. The difference came down to what each team allowed into the analysis—some studies used inactive comparators, mixed ivermectin with other unproven drugs, or included patients without confirmed infection. When those questionable trials are removed, the apparent benefit disappears, underscoring how meta-analysis results hinge entirely on what goes in.
Already have an account? Log in
Unlock the Full original article
You have access to 4 more FREE articles this month.
Click below to unlock and view this original article
Unlock Now
Critical appraisals of the latest, high-impact randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in orthopaedics
Access to OrthoEvidence podcast content, including collaborations with the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, interviews with internationally recognized surgeons, and roundtable discussions on orthopaedic news and topics
Subscription to The Pulse, a twice-weekly evidence-based newsletter designed to help you make better clinical decisions
Exclusive access to original content articles, including in-house systematic reviews, and articles on health research methods and hot orthopaedic topics
Or upgrade today and gain access to all OrthoEvidencecontent for as little as $1.99 per week.
Already have an account? Log in
0 of 4 monthly FREE articles unlocked
