Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34573986›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Ivermectin for Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Mario Cruciani, Ilaria Pati, Francesca Masiello, Marina Malena, Simonetta Pupella, Vincenzo De Angelis

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Role of Cyclodextrins in COVID-19 Therapy-A Literature Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Unvaccinated COVID-19 Pneumonia- a family affair.Health psychology research · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Multipurpose Drugs Active Against BothFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Mario CrucianiItalian National Blood Centre, National Institute of Health, 37100 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1641-7367
Ilaria PatiItalian National Blood Centre, National Institute of Health, 37100 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4846-2338
Francesca MasielloItalian National Blood Centre, National Institute of Health, 37100 Rome, Italy.
Marina MalenaInfectious Diseases Unit, AULSS9 Scaligera, 37100 Verona, Italy.
Simonetta PupellaItalian National Blood Centre, National Institute of Health, 37100 Rome, Italy.
Vincenzo De AngelisItalian National Blood Centre, National Institute of Health, 37100 Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIvermectin has received particular attention as a potential treatment for COVID-19. However, the evidence to support its clinical efficacy is controversial.

objectivesWe undertook a new systematic review of ivermectin for the treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19, including new primary studies, outcomes other than mortality, and grading the quality of the available evidence following the Cochrane guidance for methodology.

methodsWe searched electronic databases, repository databases, and clinical trial registries (up to June 2021). The measure of treatment effect was risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The GRADE system was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.

resultsThe review includes 11 RCTs (2436 participants). The certainty of the available evidence was quite low or very low due to risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. When the analysis was limited to patients with baseline mild or moderate disease (8 reports, 1283 patients), there were no differences in mortality between ivermectin and control groups (low level of certainty); in patients with baseline severe diseases (3 reports, 304 patients), the use of ivermectin significantly decreased mortality compared to the controls (RD -0.17; 95% CIs, -0.24/-0.10;

conclusionsThere is limited evidence for the benefit of ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment and prophylaxis, and most of this evidence is of low quality. Further evidence is needed to fine-tune potential indications and optimal treatment protocols for ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Indexed as

COVID-19ivermectinmeta-analysisSARS-CoV-2systematic review

Identifiers

PMID34573986
PMCPMC8470309

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.