01663nas a2200193   4500000000100000008004100001260003400042653002400076653001300100653002100113100001100134700001800145700001700163245007300180856007900253490000600332520111700338022001401455       2022                            d  bOxford University Press (OUP)10aInfectious Diseases10aOncology10aivermectin (IVM)1 aHill A1 aMirchandani M1 aPilkington V00aIvermectin for COVID-19: Addressing Potential Bias and Medical Fraud  uhttps://academic.oup.com/ofid/article-pdf/9/2/ofab645/42248125/ofab645.pdf0 v93 a<p>Ivermectin has become a controversial potential medicine for coronavirus disease 2019. Some early studies suggested clinical benefits in treatment of infection. However, the body of evidence includes studies of varying quality. Furthermore, some trials have now been identified as potentially fraudulent. We present a subgroup meta-analysis to assess the effects of stratifying by trial quality on the overall results. The stratification is based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias measures and raw data analysis where possible. The results suggest that the significant effect of ivermectin on survival was dependent on largely poor-quality studies. According to the potentially fraudulent study (risk ratio [RR], 0.08; 95% CI, 0.02–0.35), ivermectin improved survival ~12 times more in comparison with low-risk studies (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.56–1.66). This highlights the need for rigorous quality assessments, for authors to share patient-level data, and for efforts to avoid publication bias for registered studies. These steps are vital to facilitate accurate conclusions on clinical treatments.</p>
  a2328-8957