Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32561148›Full record

ReviewMayo Clinic proceedings2020

Treatment Considerations for COVID-19: A Critical Review of the Evidence (or Lack Thereof).

Prakhar Vijayvargiya, Zerelda Esquer Garrigos, Natalia E Castillo Almeida, Pooja R Gurram, Ryan W Stevens, Raymund R Razonable

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Mayo Clinic proceedings, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed, 95 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Potential Pharmacological Applications ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. COVID-19 Pathogenesis and Clinical Manifestations.Infectious disease clinics of North America · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Therapeutic dilemmas in addressing SARS-CoV-2 infection: Favipiravir versus Remdesivir.Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & pharmacotherapie · 2022
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Prakhar VijayvargiyaDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN.
Zerelda Esquer GarrigosDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN.
Natalia E Castillo AlmeidaDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN.
Pooja R GurramDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN.
Ryan W StevensDepartment of Pharmacy Services, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Raymund R RazonableDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN. Electronic address: Razonable.raymund@mayo.edu.
Mayo Clinic in Arizona · USMayo Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is causing a worldwide pandemic that may lead to a highly morbid and potentially fatal coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). There is currently no drug that has been proven as an effective therapy for COVID-19. Several candidate drugs are being considered and evaluated for treatment. This includes clinically available drugs, such as chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and lopinavir/ritonavir, which are being repurposed for the treatment of COVID-19. Novel experimental therapies, such as remdesivir and favipiravir, are also actively being investigated for antiviral efficacy. Clinically available and investigational immunomodulators, such as the interleukin 6 inhibitors tocilizumab and sarilumab and the anti-granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor lenzilumab, are being tested for their anticipated effect in counteracting the pro-inflammatory cytokine environment that characterizes severe and critical COVID-19. This review article examines the evidence behind the potential use of these leading drug candidates for the treatment of COVID-19. The authors conclude, based on this review, that there is still no high-quality evidence to support any of these proposed drug therapies. The authors, therefore, encourage the enrollment of eligible patients to multiple ongoing clinical trials that assess the efficacy and safety of these candidate therapies. Until the results of controlled trials are available, none of the suggested therapeutics is clinically proven as an effective therapy for COVID-19.

Indexed as

BetacoronavirusAntiviral AgentsCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19COVID-19 Drug TreatmentCOVID-19 SerotherapyHumansImmunization, PassiveImmunologic FactorsPandemicsPneumonia, ViralSARS-CoV-2Antiviral AgentsImmunologic Factors

Identifiers

PMID32561148
PMCPMC7190528
OpenAlexW3022225035

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.