Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32684483›Full record

ArticleTransfusion medicine reviews2020

A Scoping Review of Registered Clinical Trials of Cellular Therapy for COVID-19 and a Framework for Accelerated Synthesis of Trial Evidence-FAST Evidence.

Gary Liao, Katina Zheng, Manoj M Lalu, Dean A Fergusson, David S Allan

Open access · greenAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Transfusion medicine reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gary LiaoFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Katina ZhengFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Manoj M LaluFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Clinical Epidemiology and Regenerative Medicine Programs, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Dean A FergussonFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Clinical Epidemiology and Regenerative Medicine Programs, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
David S AllanFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Clinical Epidemiology and Regenerative Medicine Programs, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: daallan@toh.ca.
University of Ottawa · CAOttawa Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The urgent need for safe and effective treatments for COVID-19 has fueled the launch of many parallel complex studies of cellular therapies with small to modest enrolment projections. By pooling data from multiple studies that are similar, we can increase the ability to achieve sufficient power to determine effectiveness more quickly through meta-analysis. A scoping review of registered clinical trials using cell-based interventions for COVID-19 was conducted to identify candidate studies for meta-analysis that could support an accelerated regulatory review. ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched April 23, 2020. Trials were included if they utilized cell or cell-derived products to treat or prevent COVID-19. Fifty-four registered cellular therapy trials were identified and included for analysis. Studies of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs; 41 studies; 1129 subjects projected to receive cells) and natural killer (NK) cells (5 studies; 135 projected to received cells) were observed most commonly. A subset of studies are controlled (34 studies, or 63%), including 27 studies of MSCs and 3 of NK cells. While heterogeneity in study design exists, the cumulative projected enrolment of patients from similar studies appears sufficient to allow the detection of meaningful differences in clinically important outcomes such as mortality, admission to intensive care and need for mechanical ventilation by September 2020-sooner than any individual study could determine effectiveness. MSCs are the predominant cell type in registered trials for severe or critical COVID-19 and represent the most promising candidates for future meta-analysis. Sufficient pooled sample size to detect clinically important reductions in multiple outcomes, including mortality, is anticipated by September 2020, but may require accessing supplementary data to align outcome reporting. Regulatory approval, funding and implementation by cell manufacturing partners will be accelerated by our framework for rapid meta-analysis.

Indexed as

BetacoronavirusClinical Trials as TopicCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19COVID-19 SerotherapyCritical CareGlobal HealthHumansImmunization, PassiveKiller Cells, NaturalMesenchymal Stem CellsPandemicsPneumonia, ViralRegistriesReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignAcute respiratory distress syndromeCellular therapyClinical trialsCOVID-19Mesenchymal stromal cellsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32684483
PMCPMC7320662
OpenAlexW3037685923

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.