COVID-19 studies:  C19 studies: C19:  IvermectinIVM Vitamin DV.D HC QHC Q Vitamin CV.C ZincZn PVP-IPVP-I REGNREGN LY-CoVLY RemdesivirRMD
HCQ meta analysis
1/24 Early, Late, PrEP, PEP
Covid Analysis (Preprint) (meta analysis - not included in study count)
HCQ is effective for COVID-19 when used early: real-time meta analysis of 195 studies
Source   PDF   Share   Tweet
• HCQ is effective for COVID-19. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 195 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 1 quadrillion (p = 0.0000000000000009).
• Early treatment is most successful, with 100% of studies reporting a positive effect and an estimated reduction of 67% in the effect measured (death, hospitalization, etc.) using a random effects meta-analysis, RR 0.33 [0.25-0.43].
• 91% of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early, PrEP, or PEP treatment report positive effects, the probability of this happening for an ineffective treatment is 0.0059.
• There is evidence of bias towards publishing negative results. 88% of prospective studies report positive effects, and only 75% of retrospective studies do.
• Studies from North America are 4.0 times more likely to report negative results than studies from the rest of the world combined, p = 0.00000005.
Total195 studies3,074 authors166,999 patients
Positive effects152 studies2,394 authors123,307 patients
Early treatment 67% improvement RR 0.33 [0.25-0.43]
Late treatment 25% improvement RR 0.75 [0.69-0.81]


Covid Analysis et al., 1/24/2021, preprint, 1 author.
Details of all 237 studies    Meta analysis
Please send us corrections, updates, or comments.
Submit