COVID-19 studies:  C19 studies: C19:  IvermectinIVM Vitamin DV.D HC QHC Q Vitamin CV.C ZincZn PVP-IPVP-I FLVFLV REGNR2 LY-CoVLY RemdesivirRMD
HCQ meta analysis
2/25 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 210 studies
Source   PDF   Share   Tweet
• HCQ is effective for COVID-19. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 210 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 74 quadrillion (p = 0.000000000000000014).
• Early treatment is most successful, with 100% of studies reporting a positive effect and an estimated reduction of 66% in the effect measured (death, hospitalization, etc.) using a random effects meta-analysis, RR 0.34 [0.27-0.44].
• 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. 89% of prospective studies report positive effects, and only 76% of retrospective studies do.
• Studies from North America are 3.8 times more likely to report negative results than studies from the rest of the world combined, p = 0.00000010.
Total210 studies3,270 authors186,848 patients
Positive effects165 studies2,565 authors142,569 patients
Early treatment 66% improvement RR 0.34 [0.27-0.44]
Late treatment 25% improvement RR 0.75 [0.69-0.81]


Covid Analysis et al., 2/25/2021, preprint, 1 author.
Details of all 257 studies    Meta analysis
Please send us corrections, updates, or comments.
Submit