There has been just one trial done properly to my knowledge, and that was published yesterday. And even that is just applied in a narrow case (post-exposure prophylaxis, modulo some important study limitations).
I believe it was done the best they could, given that UMN had to use very little money for it (~100K USD, as far as I understand). That's why IMO the limitations need to be fully read and understood.
But I think it was done in good faith (unlike the Lancet study): the PI tried to his best to avoid spilling the beans until it was published to avoid sensationalism, and at the same time, he signed the open letter against the Lancet paper (after he sent the paper for review, so he knew the results already).
Larger studies will likely be needed. It's clear that the effect size (if any exists) is quite small, like with remedisivir.
https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje...
One of these "studies" is a 2-page Google Doc with no real data. Another is the discredited Raoult study, which is under investigation by the journal [1]. Another study cited is also by Raoult's team. The Brazil study (ref. 29) doesn't seem to have passed peer review (yet?) and has severe methodological flaws. Like the Raoult studies, the Brazil study was not randomized, but makes no attempt to control for confounding by indication or self-selection, such as with propensity score matching or similar methods commonly used in observational studies. The last study cited isn't a study, but an article from a local news station.