Oral ivermectin versus 5% permethrin cream to treat children and adults with classic scabies: multicentre, assessor blinded, cluster randomised clinical trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Oral ivermectin versus 5% permethrin cream to treat children and adults with classic scabies: multicentre, assessor blinded, cluster randomised clinical trial.
Item: Oral ivermectin versus 5% permethrin cream to treat children and adults with classic scabies: multicentre, assessor blinded, cluster randomised clinical trial.
Rating: 100
Author: Αlpha¹

Boralevi F, Simon G, Bernigaud C, Brun J, Goujon E, Perrot JL, Phan A, Hérissé AL, Maruani A, Vanhaecke C, Couty E, Abasq-Thomas C, Fournet M, Mallet S, Brenaut E, Hubiche T, Balguerie X, Caux F, Beneton N, Dutkiewicz AS, Adamski H, Aubert H, Bourrat E, Couzan C, Eyraud A, Janela-Lapert R, Marti A, Miquel J, Richard M, Barbarot S, Bonniaud B, Chabbert C, Delion F, Dinulescu M, Duong TA, Etienne M, Hirsch G, Isnard C, Huet F, Le Bidre E, Leducq S, Legrand A, Monestier S, Morice-Picard F, Seneschal J, Capelli A, Lacoste C, Labrèze C, Miraglia G, Do-Pham G, Giraudeau B, Chosidow O

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 5★ (Exemplary), 0 critical, 0 high issues for “Oral ivermectin versus 5% permethrin cream to treat children and adults with classic scabies: multicentre, assessor blinded, cluster randomised clinical trial.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 15, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

5 / 5

Exemplary — no material problems found

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — no deductions. Nothing the checks ran surfaced a material problem.

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Problems surfaced1 type

Overstated conclusions1

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a well-conducted and transparently reported cluster-randomised trial comparing ivermectin and permethrin for scabies. The paper demonstrates strong methodological rigor in randomization, blinding, and statistical analysis, with clear reporting of ethics, resources, and limitations. Minor gaps include the lack of a detailed data access procedure for patient-level data and the sample size calculation not accounting for clustering.

Both reviewers classified the study as interventional, and this was adopted. The evaluation covered all eight dimensions; several sub-criteria were marked not applicable due to the human clinical trial context (e.g., species/strain, housing, cell line authentication). The reviewers diverged slightly on the data availability statement and the adequacy of the power analysis, but these did not affect the overall pass status.

7 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 1 only partially supported (evidence backs part of the claim; gaps or caveats remain); the rest adequately supported.

Efficacy claim is anchored to an adequate endpoint and a meaningful effect.

Recomputed 3 tests: 3 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 3 via agent-written checks.

Reporting

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The introduction cites prior research on scabies prevalence, treatment options, and two Cochrane systematic reviews with contradictory conclusions. It identifies five methodological flaws in prior RCTs that the current study aims to address, such as lack of dermoscopic confirmation, cluster design, and assessor blinding. The rationale linking these gaps to the study objectives is clear and logical.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The paper clearly establishes the scientific premise by citing prior work, including contradictory Cochrane reviews, and provides a logical rationale for the study.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“the conclusions of two Cochrane systematic reviews, published in 2007 and 2018, were contradictory: permethrin superiority or no difference in efficacy between the drugs, possibly explained by endpoint differences.”