Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32617989›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical virology2021

Efficacy and safety of umifenovir for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Dong Huang, He Yu, Ting Wang, Huan Yang, Rong Yao, Zongan Liang

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical virology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 115 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dong HuangDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
He YuDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Ting WangDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Huan YangDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Rong YaoEmergency Medical Laboratory, Department of Emergency Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Zongan LiangDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.ORCID 0000-0001-6598-0108
Sichuan University · CN

Funding

Emergency Response Project for New Coronavirus of Science and Technology Department of Sichuan Provincial 2020YFS0005Emergency Response Project for New Coronavirus of Science and Technology Department of Sichuan Provincial 2020YFS0009
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We conducted this systemic review and meta-analysis in an attempt to evaluate the efficacy and safety of umifenovir in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and medRxiv database. We included both retrospective and prospective studies. The mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were applied to assess the effectiveness of umifenovir for COVID-19. A total of 12 studies with 1052 patients were included in our final studies. Compared with control group, umifenovir was associated with higher negative rate of PCR on day 14 (RR:1.27; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.55). However, umifenovir is not related to nucleus acid negative conversion time (MD: 0.09; 95% CI: -1.48 to 1.65), negative rate on day 7 (RR:1.09; 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.31), incidence of composite endpoint (RR:1.20; 95% CI: 0.61 to 2.37), rate of fever alleviation on day 7 (RR:1.00; 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.10), rate of cough alleviation on day 7 (RR:1.00; 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.18), or hospital length of stay (MD: 1.34; 95% CI: -2.08 to 4.76). Additionally, umifenovir was safe in COVID-19 patients (RR for incidence of adverse events: 1.29; 95% CI: 0.57 to 2.92). The results of sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were similar to pooled results. There is no evidence to support the use of umifenovir for improving patient-important outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

Indexed as

COVID-19 Drug TreatmentSARS-CoV-2Antiviral AgentsHumansIndolesSulfidesAntiviral AgentsIndolesSulfidesumifenovirCOVID-19efficacymeta-analysissafetyumifenovir

Identifiers

PMID32617989
PMCPMC7361300
OpenAlexW3039424645

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.