4 ms·
I see your point that it could be P-hacking (as in https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/), but why would Ivermectin be so much more P-hacked than HCQ?
by 0-_-0 5y ago
I see your point that it could be P-hacking (as in https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/), but why would Ivermectin be so much more P-hacked than HCQ?
- gus_massa 5y agoLet's look at the biggest studies HQC: RECOVERY (RCT) -9% 1.09 [0.97-1.23] death 421/1,561 790/3,155 Mitjà (RCT) 52% 0.48 [0.15-1.57] death 4/1,196 9/1,301 SOLIDARITY (RCT) -19% 1.19 [0.89-1.59] death 104/947 84/906 --- Ivermectin: Seet (CLUS. RCT) 50% 0.50 [0.33-0.76] severe case 32/617 64/619 12mg Elgazzar (RCT) 92% 0.08 [0.02-0.35] death 2/200 24/200 112mg Mahmud (DB RCT) 86% 0.14 [0.01-2.75] death 0/183 3/183 12mg --- My guess is: HCQ was very promising in early 2020 and there has been enough time to make big RCT. Ivermectin got more promising this year and the big RCT didn't finish yet, or the results are still not published. (In a big trial with a few thousand patients, you need a lot of time, coordination and paperwork, so the result is less likely to not get published.)
- 0-_-0 5y agoIf you're right, there should be a correlation with stidy size and results (I'll check for this tomorrow if I remember). It would still have to be explained why do small studies show a much worse result for HCQ than Ivermectin.