5 ms·

Part of a network of spam sites https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678 https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111...

errantmind 5y ago
The link you provided says this website lists some studies which don't meet its methodological standards. I understand that can be problematic, but that doesn't make them 'spam' sites. I'd wager the people downvoting me didn't even look at the material you reference, nor the studies in the meta-analysis I posted.
- pbak 5y ago
  Welcome to the suck. Most don't. It's less of a dopamine hit if before posting anything you take 2-3 hours to go through at least 1 or 2 papers in detail. Then again, if you' want to show equanimity during a controversy, you'd have to go read what is said on the "other side" of any such debate. IMHO, most people don't want to be "nuance"-pilled either way on any subject, much less in regards to the Covid situation. Going straight to the jugular in a comment is easier.
- wonnage 5y ago
  It's more that this website doesn't follow any methodological standards: > Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/ https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol. These websites show pooled estimates suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread spurious or fallacious findings.
  - errantmind 5y ago
    People seem to be assuming, since there are flaws in the meta analysis, that means there must be flaws in all of the underlying research, which doesn't appear to be the case when looking at the publications.

errantmind 5y ago

The link you provided says this website lists some studies which don't meet its methodological standards. I understand that can be problematic, but that doesn't make them 'spam' sites. I'd wager the people downvoting me didn't even look at the material you reference, nor the studies in the meta-analysis I posted.

pbak 5y ago
Welcome to the suck. Most don't. It's less of a dopamine hit if before posting anything you take 2-3 hours to go through at least 1 or 2 papers in detail. Then again, if you' want to show equanimity during a controversy, you'd have to go read what is said on the "other side" of any such debate. IMHO, most people don't want to be "nuance"-pilled either way on any subject, much less in regards to the Covid situation. Going straight to the jugular in a comment is easier.
wonnage 5y ago
It's more that this website doesn't follow any methodological standards: > Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/ https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol. These websites show pooled estimates suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread spurious or fallacious findings.
- errantmind 5y ago
  People seem to be assuming, since there are flaws in the meta analysis, that means there must be flaws in all of the underlying research, which doesn't appear to be the case when looking at the publications.