I haven& #39;t read this meta-analysis, so I don& #39;t know if it& #39;s any good (I have some doubts), but the headline result is entirely unsurprising given my analysis of Boulware et al.& #39;s study, which I showed actually suggested a modest prophylactic effect of HCQ. https://necpluribusimpar.net/hydroxychloroquine-significance-testing-and-the-misinterpretation-of-negative-results/">https://necpluribusimpar.net/hydroxych... https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1311502282324946944">https://twitter.com/BallouxFr...

One reason I& #39;m skeptical is that the fact they used a a "compound metric" of infection, hospitalisation and death suggests to me that perhaps not all the studies they included were about *pre-exposure* prophylaxis (as Boulware et al. was), which wouldn& #39;t make a lot of sense.

On the other hand, Boulware et al.& #39;s study arguably was at least as much about post-exposure prophylaxis as pre-exposure because of a faulty design, so if the other studies included in the meta-analysis were about post-exposure prophylaxis, the result might still be meaningful https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🤷‍♂️" title="Achselzuckender Mann" aria-label="Emoji: Achselzuckender Mann">