SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2026
Comparative effectiveness of ivermectin versus permethrin for the treatment of scabies: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Scabies Treatment Failure: Beyond Drug Resistance and Toward a Multidimensional Understanding.Journal of tropical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScabies is a highly contagious parasitic skin disease and a recognised neglected tropical disease with substantial global burden. Permethrin and ivermectin are widely used treatments, yet uncertainty remains regarding their comparative effectiveness.
aimTo systematically evaluate and compare the effectiveness of ivermectin versus permethrin for the treatment of scabies in humans.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Studies comparing ivermectin with permethrin were identified through searches of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Risk of bias was assessed using the updated Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2). A random-effects meta-analysis was performed using RevMan version 5.4.1 Only peer-reviewed RCTs involving human participants with clinically diagnosed scabies were included.
resultsSeven studies involving 1,216 participants were included. Compared with permethrin, ivermectin was associated with a lower probability of clinical cure at final follow-up (RR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.86-0.99; I² = 61%) and a higher risk of treatment failure (RR = 1.52, 95% CI 1.06-2.20; I² = 0%).
conclusionPermethrin demonstrates a modest advantage over ivermectin in achieving clinical cure and reducing treatment failure. Ivermectin remains a useful alternative where topical therapy is unsuitable, but optimised dosing regimens are essential. 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.