some are far more reputable than others.
In this case the journal is "New Microbes and New Infections"
It has an "impact factor" of 1.94 meaning it is not influential (compare to the New England Journal of Medicine at 91.245), possibly less well peer-reviewed and unfortunately there are enough journals these days that almost anything can be published.
As for the content: there are many scientific meta-analyses claiming Ivermectin confers benefit. Unfortunately almost everyone used a preprint that has since been retracted due to analyses showing plagiarism and unreliable data.
You can read about the story here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w
Flawed ivermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies
The study’s withdrawal from a preprint platform deals a blow to the anti-parasite drug’s chances as a COVID treatment, researchers say.
"Throughout the pandemic, the anti-parasite drug ivermectin has attracted much attention, particularly in Latin America, as a potential way to treat COVID-19. But scientists say that recent, shocking revelations of widespread flaws in the data of a preprint study reporting that the medication greatly reduces COVID-19 deaths dampens ivermectin’s promise — and highlights the challenges of investigating drug efficacy during a pandemic.
“I was shocked, as everyone in the scientific community probably were,” says Eduardo López-Medina, a paediatrician at the Centre for the Study of Paediatric Infections in Cali, Colombia, who was not involved with the study and who has investigated whether ivermectin can improve COVID-19 symptoms. “It was one of the first papers that led everyone to get into the idea ivermectin worked” in a clinical-trial setting, he adds.
The paper summarized the results of a clinical trial seeming to show that ivermectin can reduce COVID-19 death rates by more than 90%1 — among the largest studies of the drug’s ability to treat COVID-19 to date. But on 14 July, after internet sleuths raised concerns about plagiarism and data manipulation, the preprint server Research Square withdrew the paper because of “ethical concerns”.
....
Before its withdrawal, the paper was viewed more than 150,000 times, cited more than 30 times and included in a number of meta-analyses that collect trial findings into a single, statistically weighted result. In one recent meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics that found ivermectin greatly reduced COVID-19 deaths4, the Elgazzar paper accounted for 15.5% of the effect."
----
Basically that one unreliable paper (which was not even officially published) threw off multiple other studies that try to combine data, including the one you reference.
= new reply since forum marked as read
