ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2025
Ivermectin repurposing for COVID-19: pharmacological and bibliometric analysis.
Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, researchers worldwide have sought effective drugs to prevent and manage SARS-CoV-2 and its spectrum of symptoms. Ivermectin, originally developed as an anthelmintic for controlling parasitic infections in humans and animals, has drawn attention based on the hypothesis that it inhibits viral replication. In Austria, ivermectin usage peaked in November 2021, following promotion by the right-wing Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) as an alternative treatment to vaccination, resonating strongly within anti-vaccine and skeptical communities. The topic is also very present in the United States of America due to the re-election of D. Trump as US President and the designation of R. Kennedy as the United States' Secretary of Health and Human Services. To critically examine the controversial use of ivermectin for COVID-19 and publication trends during the pandemic, this study analysed all publications listed in PubMed from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2022 using the keywords 'ivermectin' and 'COVID-19', resulting in a dataset of 353 publications. These publications were assessed for scientific quality, methodological rigour and bias, with particular focus on the influence of social and political dynamics on publication practices, as well as the prevalence of preprints, citation trends and the role of funding sources. Our study shows that many highly cited studies on ivermectin display methodological weaknesses and data gaps, contributing to the propagation of hypotheses lacking substantial empirical support. This analysis underscores the necessity of rigorous quality control during crises and highlights the long-term risks posed to scientific databases and public health by methodologically deficient research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.