Open Letter, Statement of Concern and Request for Retraction
Open Letter, Statement of Concern and Request for Retraction, re: Roman et al. (News)
Open Letter, Open Letter, Statement of Concern and Request for Retraction, , Statement of Concern and Request for Retraction, re: Roman et al. (News)
Open letter signed by 40 physicians detailing errors and flaws in the Roman et al. meta analysis, and requesting retraction.
Open Letter et al., 3 Jul 2021, preprint, 40 authors.
Abstract: EbMCsquared CiC
Robert T. Schooley, MD, Editor-in-Chief
Clinical Infectious Diseases
198 Madison Ave
New York
NY 10016 USA
+1-919-677-0977 x 5175
E-mail: cid.editorialoffice@idsociety.org
Dear Dr Schooley
Open Letter
Statement of Concern and Request for Retraction
Re: Roman Y M, Burela P A, Paspuleti V, Piscoya A, Vidal J E and Hernandez A V
“Ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19:
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials”
Clinical Infectious Diseases, ciab591 Accepted manuscript 28 June 2021
The above article, now an “Accepted Manuscript” in Clinical Infectious Diseases, does not
meet the standards of accuracy and integrity that any learned journal should demand. In
asserting Conclusions that are not defensible on the evidence presented, it makes no
contribution to science or medicine. In its present form it should be retracted.
The title closely parallels that of Bryant et al.1 but asserts diametrically opposite
conclusions. The clinical trials selected ( n=1173 participants, 10 studies ) are a minor subset
of those available and analysed in Bryant et al. ( n=3406, 24 studies ). The article commits
several methodological fallacies, but first it is essential to be working with correct data.
Roman et al. have in several instances mis-reported clinical trial data either published or
in preprint. The most egregious such error was corrected after alerts on social media and in
the Comments section2 of the manuscript’s preprint on medRciv; others however remain.
It is inexplicable for the authors to have disregarded multiple public notices of
substantive errors whilst on preprint. In failing to correct, the authors verge upon
falsification of data. In the Journal’s statement of Publication Ethics this is deemed
1
(updated version as published) Bryant A, Lawrie T A et alia (2021) “Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment
of Covid-9 infection: a Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis to inform clinical
guidelines” Am. J. Therapeutics e-publish ahead of print
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_o
f.98040.aspx
2
Roman Y M et al., version 1: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.21.21257595v1
EbMCsquared CiC
“unacceptable”. Most of the misreporting instances are conveniently collected on
“PUBPEER”3 by various contributors.
1. Inversion of the treatment and control arms of Niaee4. This error was alerted (including
personal protest from Dr Niaee2) and corrected prior to publication5 and in Figure 2. In
spite of a dramatic change in the point estimates of mortality Risk Ratio (erroneous 1.11
changed to 0.37) there was however no change whatever in the Abstract Conclusions:
“IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality”. The published statement is now indefensible,
even on the authors’ own highly selective choice of sources. Our concern here is not that
the data were not corrected; it is that conclusions are no longer based on the data.
2. Niaee4 is further mis-reported in Figure 3 (duration of hospital stay) where source data
patently indicate a reduction (albeit modest) in hospitalization. Yet the primary data are
plotted as “favours control” when the reverse is correct. There appear to be unexplained
discrepancies in treatment and control arm patient numbers between Figure 3 and the
source. This error is noted in the Comments section of medRciv2,5 and on PUBPEER3.
3. The study called “Karamat” (Dr Karamat Hussein Shah..
Please send us corrections, updates, or comments. Vaccines and
treatments are complementary. All practical, effective, and safe means should
be used based on risk/benefit analysis. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention
is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. We do not
provide medical advice. Before taking any medication, consult a qualified
physician who can provide personalized advice and details of risks and
benefits based on your medical history and situation.
FLCCC and
WCH
provide treatment protocols.
Submit