# Random vs. fixed effects meta-analysis

**URL:** <https://discourse.datamethods.org/t/random-vs-fixed-effects-meta-analysis/7361>\
**Category:** meta-analysis\
**Tags:** random-effects\
**Created:** [January 11, 2024, 8:11am UTC](https://discourse.datamethods.org/t/random-vs-fixed-effects-meta-analysis/7361 "2024-01-11T08:11:11Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 13

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![f2harrell](https://discourse.datamethods.org/user_avatar/discourse.datamethods.org/f2harrell/32/165_2.png) [@f2harrell](https://discourse.datamethods.org/u/f2harrell)\
**Post date:** [January 15, 2024, 1:07pm UTC](https://discourse.datamethods.org/t/random-vs-fixed-effects-meta-analysis/7361/13 "2024-01-15T13:07:30Z")

</div>

Extremely helpful again. My informal take on the Ivermectin literature, having been one of the lead statisticians on two Ivermectin RCTs, is that Ivermectin has a beneficial effect that happens to be very small, almost inconsequential. This matches a meta-analyses of RCTs we were not involved in. We need to do more inference on a clinical scale. In our case we compute a Bayesian posterior probability that patients recovered from COVID-19 more than 1/2 day quicker with Ivermectin than with placebo.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.datamethods.org/t/random-vs-fixed-effects-meta-analysis/7361)._