Hydroxychloroquine use during the first COVID-19 wave: a case study highlighting the urgent need to enhance research practices within the publication ecosystem.

The rapid dissemination of scientific findings through media and social networks can profoundly impact public health policies and behaviors. However, the reliability of such data is crucial, as evidenced by significant cases like the retracted study on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) during the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper examines the retraction of a widely publicized study by Pradelle et al., which concluded that HCQ was associated with an excess of 16,990 deaths during the pandemic's first wave. This finding was heavily influenced by a meta-analysis that did not robustly support its conclusions, particularly regarding the dose-response relationship of HCQ. Our analysis identified significant methodological flaws, including the misapplication of effect sizes and a lack of sensitivity analyses, rendering the study results unreliable. The retraction process, however, lacked transparency, failing to adequately describe in details the reasons for the study flaws to the public. This case underscores the broader challenges in scientific publishing, including the robustness of the peer-review process, the rise of fraudulent practices, and the erosion of trust in scientific institutions. We advocate for reforms to enhance transparency, improve data verification, and incentivize thorough peer review to maintain public trust and ensure the accuracy of scientific literature.