ArticleJAMA health forum2023
Misinformation, Trust, and Use of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19.
Article in JAMA health forum, 2023. 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 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Impact of Study Size on COVID-19 Treatment Outcomes: A Meta-Epidemiological Study Comparing Large and Small Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.Reviews in medical virology · 2026Pooled it
- Translational stewardship in pandemic therapeutics: ivermectin, evidentiary misalignment, and the propagation of constraints.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Making US public health a good idea again.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Review
- Misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines cost the United States $2 billion from hospitalizations in 2021.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
- Use of chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin for Covid-19 prevention in vulnerable Brazilian populations.Revista de saude publica · 2026Article
- Fear and Medical Misinformation Regarding Risk of Progression or Recurrence Among Patients with Breast Cancer.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Review
- Membrane Perturbations and Assay Interferences by Ivermectin Explain Its In Vitro SARS-CoV-2 Antiviral Activities and Lack of Translatability.Journal of medicinal chemistry · 2025Review
- COVID-19 and a Tale of Three Drugs: To Repurpose, or Not to Repurpose-That Was the Question.Viruses · 2025Review
- Quantifying Public Engagement With Science and Malinformation on COVID-19 Vaccines: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Demographic Variation In US Outpatient Hydroxychloroquine And Ivermectin Use During The COVID-19 Pandemic.Health affairs (Project Hope) · 2025Article
- Factors associated with seeking and receiving home antiviral therapy during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.Discover public health · 2025Article
- Are researchers allowed to publicly disseminate research findings before journal publication?Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Variations in Unmet Health Care Needs by Perceptions of Social Media Health Mis- and Disinformation, Frequency of Social Media Use, Medical Trust, and Medical Care Discrimination: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
- Article
- Current safeguards, risk mitigation, and transparency measures of large language models against the generation of health disinformation: repeated cross sectional analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2024Article
- Article
- Making sense of a pandemic: reasoning about COVID-19 in the intellectual dark web.Frontiers in sociology · 2024Article
- Evaluation of link between COVID-19 adjacent spike in hydroxychloroquine use and increased reports of pemphigus: a disproportionality analysis of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has been notable for the widespread dissemination of misinformation regarding the virus and appropriate treatment. Objective: To quantify the prevalence of non-evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 in the US and the association between such treatment and endorsement of misinformation as well as lack of trust in physicians and scientists. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-wave, population-based, nonprobability internet survey study was conducted between December 22, 2022, and January 16, 2023, in US residents 18 years or older who reported prior COVID-19 infection. Main Outcome and Measure: Self-reported use of ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, endorsing false statements related to COVID-19 vaccination, self-reported trust in various institutions, conspiratorial thinking measured by the American Conspiracy Thinking Scale, and news sources. Results: A total of 13 438 individuals (mean [SD] age, 42.7 [16.1] years; 9150 [68.1%] female and 4288 [31.9%] male) who reported prior COVID-19 infection were included in this study. In this cohort, 799 (5.9%) reported prior use of hydroxychloroquine (527 [3.9%]) or ivermectin (440 [3.3%]). In regression models including sociodemographic features as well as political affiliation, those who endorsed at least 1 item of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation were more likely to receive non-evidence-based medication (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.86; 95% CI, 2.28-3.58). Those reporting trust in physicians and hospitals (adjusted OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56-0.98) and in scientists (adjusted OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.51-0.79) were less likely to receive non-evidence-based medication. Respondents reporting trust in social media (adjusted OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.00-2.87) and in Donald Trump (adjusted OR, 2.97; 95% CI, 2.34-3.78) were more likely to have taken non-evidence-based medication. Individuals with greater scores on the American Conspiracy Thinking Scale were more likely to have received non-evidence-based medications (unadjusted OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.11; adjusted OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.07-1.13). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of US adults, endorsement of misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic, lack of trust in physicians or scientists, conspiracy-mindedness, and the nature of news sources were associated with receiving non-evidence-based treatment for COVID-19. These results suggest that the potential harms of misinformation may extend to the use of ineffective and potentially toxic treatments in addition to avoidance of health-promoting behaviors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.