SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2026
The role of ivermectin in the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIvermectin, as a potential drug for the treatment of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, remains controversial regarding its efficacy and safety. This study aims to systematically evaluate the therapeutic and preventive effect of ivermectin in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted on October 11, 2025, to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing ivermectin for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measures were mortality rate and adverse event rate for hospitalized patients and outpatient patients, while secondary outcomes included hospitalization time and recovery time. Given the anticipated clinical and methodological heterogeneity across the included RCTs (e.g., variations in ivermectin dosage, study population characteristics, trial implementation time and SARS-CoV-2 variants), a random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis to obtain a robust synthesis of heterogeneous study results and reliable estimation of pooled effect sizes.
resultsA total of 40 RCTs involving 23,243 participants were included. Among them, 4 studies evaluated the preventive effect of ivermectin on SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the other 36 studies evaluated the therapeutic effect of ivermectin in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. For prevention, there was no statistically significant difference between the ivermectin group and control group in SARS-CoV-2 infection rate [risk ratio (RR) 0.37; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.12 to 1.20]. For treatment, all-cause mortality for both hospitalized patients (RR 0.94; 95%CI 0.74 to 1.20) and outpatients (RR 0.88; 95%CI 0.55 to 1.42) showed no statistically significant difference. Adverse events for hospitalized patients (RR 1.02; 95%CI 0.76 to 1.37) and outpatients (RR 0.96; 95%CI 0.82 to 1.13) also showed no statistically significant difference.
conclusionsThis meta-analysis provides evidence that ivermectin does not statistically significantly reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection or improve clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Further high-quality trials are needed to clarify the potential benefits of ivermectin. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.