Cited by 91Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsAcademic Publishing and Open AccessStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

The lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are inherently unreliable

Open access
Lawrence, Jack M., Meyerowitz-Katz, Gideon, Heathers, James A. J., Brown, Nicholas J. L., Sheldrick, Kyle A.·2021·Nature Medicine

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41591-021-01535-y

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • During the COVID-19 pandemic, systematic reviews for ivermectin suggested an impressive benefit of the drug for reducing mortality on the basis of potentially problematic trials, while subsequent high-quality evidence appears to show modest or no benefit.

    “During the COVID-19 pandemic, systematic reviews for ivermectin suggested an impressive benefit of the drug for reducing mortality on the basis of potentially problematic trials (25), while subsequent high-quality evidence appears to show modest or no benefit (26, 27).”

    From INSPECT-SR: a tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled trials (2025) · cites this paper as [25]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

2 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Elgazzar, A. et al. Preprint at https://www.researchsquare.com/ article/rs-100956/v3 (2020).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lawrence, J. M., Meyerowitz-Katz, G., Heathers, J. A. J., Brown, N. J. L., & Sheldrick, K. A.
Affiliations
  • St George's, University of London (GB)
  • Linnaeus University (SE)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Sheldrick, Kyle A.
Venue
Nature Medicine
Published
2021-09-22
Volume
27
Issue
11
Pages
1853-1854
ISSN
  • 1078-8956 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-170X
OpenAlex
W3201621697
Cited by
88
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 8
FWCI
10.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
ivermectin, COVID-19 pandemic, meta-analysis, summary data, evidence synthesis, publication bias, unpublished trials, trial quality, COVID-19 treatment
MeSH terms
SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Drug Treatment, Antiparasitic Agents, Humans, Insecticides, Ivermectin, Inappropriate Prescribing, Prescription Drug Misuse

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review