You may be referring to Elgazzar et al. as discussed here [1]. That was not a meta-analysis, it was just a single study; the paper I linked was a meta-analysis

You may be referring to Elgazzar et al. as discussed here [1]. That was not a meta-analysis, it was just a single study; the paper I linked was a meta-analysis of many such studies. The withdrawn paper was included in the paper I linked above, but it's been shown that removing its results from the meta-analysis does not change the conclusion (i.e. that ivermectin is likely an effective treatment and prophylactic against COVID-19). Instead it just changes the efficacy and error bars slightly. See e.g. this interview with evidence based medicine researcher Tess Lawrie [2] - they actually recompute the values during the interview using the software used in the study. For the record, it's worth pointing out that the reasons for withdrawal are disputed by the authors. I have not looked closely at the arguments for and against so can't comment. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-s... [2] https://odysee.com/@DarkHorsePodcastClips:b/ivermectin-meta-analysis:4 https://odysee.com/@DarkHorsePodcastClips:b/ivermectin-meta-...