RETRACTED: Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon
Assessed by RV017 · Evidence Synthesis Methodolodgy Editor
Assessed on 17 Mar 2026
OverallReviewer's overall integrity assessment, derived from all research questions Serious concerns
DOI 10.3390/v13060989 (opens in new tab)
Resource ripekg:research-integrity-assessment/RIPEA3F7A45FD29B97F68
5 Research Questions · 9 Evidence Items
Q1.1 — Does the study have an associated retraction?
Rationale: Article retracted.
Supporting Evidence (1)
Retraction NoticeSource: Retraction Watch database
Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon
10.3390/v13112154 (opens in new tab)RetractionWatch ID:Record identifier in the Retraction Watch database 33597
Rationale: Error in Analyses
About Authors: Ali Raad, Ali Eid, Hussein Mouawia, Ali Salami, Hamid Saab, Ali Samaha, Mohamed Al-Wakeel, Ola Hajjeh, Ahmad Alsaabi, Mirna Fawaz, Hamad Hassan, Houssam Raad, Hassan Ayoub, Mohamad Chouman
Q1.2 — Does the study have an associated expression of concern or other relevant post-publication notice?
Rationale: Comments on PubPeer regarding the retraction.
Supporting Evidence (3)
PubPeer ThreadSource: PubPeer.com — post-publication peer review comments
https://pubpeer.com/publications/9E6CC04E60666CB9B82318B1587C06 (opens in new tab)PubPeer CommentSource: PubPeer.com — a platform for post-publication peer review
October 2021 retraction: "The journal retracts the article, Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon [1], cited above. Following publication, the authors contacted the editorial office regarding an error between files used for the statistical analysis. Adhering to our complaints procedure, an investigation was conducted that confirmed the error reported by the authors. This retraction was approved by the Editor in Chief of the journal. The authors agreed to this retraction." Retraction Watch coverage: Also see this BBC article from October 2021: From that article: "A recent study in Lebanon was found to have blocks of details of 11 patients that had been copied and pasted repeatedly - suggesting many of the trial's apparent patients didn't really exist."
Thread: https://pubpeer.com/publications/9E6CC04E60666CB9B82318B1587C06 (opens in new tab)
PubPeer CommentSource: PubPeer.com — a platform for post-publication peer review
Independent investigations by the team, institutional and the journal review ALL confirmed that there was no ethical violation. It was a simple error in the files used for the analysis. The authors had the moral and professional courage to retract the paper. Adding comments on pubpeer will be construed as though there were ethical violations. This site is intended to uncover or question data that may appear to have been falsified, fabricated or obtained via unethical routes. None of these are in this paper. So, keeping this comment will tarnish the reputation of the authors for no valid reason. Thank you.
Thread: https://pubpeer.com/publications/9E6CC04E60666CB9B82318B1587C06 (opens in new tab)
PubPeer CommentSource: PubPeer.com — a platform for post-publication peer review
#2 How could the journal confirm that errors in the data were accidental? Have the editors announced this finding? It is not in the Retraction Note. _"This site is intended to uncover or question data that may appear to have been falsified, fabricated or obtained via unethical routes"_ I cannot speak for the intentions of PubPeer's architects, but I don't believe this is true. People often leave comments about innocent errors in figure assembly, or even to comment positively on papers that deserve wider attention or have corollaries that deserve further exploration.
Thread: https://pubpeer.com/publications/9E6CC04E60666CB9B82318B1587C06 (opens in new tab)
Q1.3 — Do other studies by the research team highlight causes for concern?
Rationale: Two authors have an additional mention in Retraction Watch.
Supporting Evidence (3)
Retraction NoticeSource: Retraction Watch database
Genotyping Analysis of Circulating Fetal Cells Reveals High Frequency of Vanishing Twin Following Transfer of Multiple Embryos
RetractionWatch ID:Record identifier in the Retraction Watch database 1034
Rationale: Concerns/Issues About Authorship/Affiliation;Miscommunication with/by Author
About Author: Hussein Mouawia
Retraction NoticeSource: Retraction Watch database
Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon
10.3390/v13112154 (opens in new tab)RetractionWatch ID:Record identifier in the Retraction Watch database 33597
Rationale: Error in Analyses
About Authors: Ali Raad, Ali Eid, Hussein Mouawia, Ali Salami, Hamid Saab, Ali Samaha, Mohamed Al-Wakeel, Ola Hajjeh, Ahmad Alsaabi, Mirna Fawaz, Hamad Hassan, Houssam Raad, Hassan Ayoub, Mohamad Chouman
Retraction NoticeSource: Retraction Watch database
NADPH Oxidase-1 Plays a Key Role in Keratinocyte Responses to UV Radiation and UVB-Induced Skin Carcinogenesis
10.1016/j.jid.2022.04.002 (opens in new tab)RetractionWatch ID:Record identifier in the Retraction Watch database 36647
Rationale: Concerns/Issues About Image;Error in Image;Original Data and/or Images not Provided and/or not Available;Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions
About Author: Houssam Raad
Q2.2 — Are there concerns relating to the timing or absence of study registration?
Rationale: Registration was a few days before first enrollment. Prospective.. Conducted between September and November 2020.
Supporting Evidence (2)
Clinical Trial RegistrationSource: Clinical trial registry (e.g. ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN)
Registration ID: ChiCTR2000033627
Registry: ChiCTR
Registry Link: https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=ChiCTR2000033627 (opens in new tab)
Registration Date: 7 Jun 2020
Prospective:Whether the trial was registered before participant recruitment began Yes
Assessment Rationale:How INSPECT-AI determined the prospective registration status by comparing dates Comparison performed at month level. Registration: 2020-06, LLM Recruitment Start: 2020-09. Deemed prospective at month level.
Study Design EvidenceDates and timelines extracted by INSPECT-AI from the publication text
Recruitment Start: 09-2020
Recruitment Start Rationale:INSPECT-AI's reasoning for how it identified the recruitment start date Methods: 'This study was conducted between September and November 2020' is used as recruitment_start date, no specific date found.
Recruitment End: N/A
Recruitment End Rationale:INSPECT-AI's reasoning for how it identified the recruitment end date No explicit end-of-recruitment date after full search.
Study End: 11-2020
Study End Rationale:INSPECT-AI's reasoning for how it identified the study end date Methods: 'This study was conducted between September and November 2020' is used as study_end_date, no specific date found.
Overall — What is the overall integrity assessment of the study?
Rationale: Article was retracted.