Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32703664›Full record

ReviewTransfusion medicine reviews2020

International Survey of Trials of Convalescent Plasma to Treat COVID-19 Infection.

Michael Murphy, Lise Estcourt, John Grant-Casey, Sunny Dzik

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Prospects of plasmapheresis for patients with severe COVID-19.European journal of translational myology · 2020
    Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Michael MurphyNHS Blood & Transplant, UK; Oxford University Hospitals, Oxford, UK; University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: mike.murphy@nhsbt.nhs.uk.
Lise EstcourtNHS Blood & Transplant, UK; University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
John Grant-CaseyNHS Blood & Transplant, UK.
Sunny DzikMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA.
Massachusetts General Hospital · USNHS Blood and Transplant · GBOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The collection and clinical use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) as a therapy for COVID-19 infection is under development and early use in many centers worldwide. We conducted an international survey of centers undertaking studies of CCP to provide understanding of the common themes and differences between them. Sixty-four studies in 22 countries were identified from clinical trial registries and personal contacts of the authors. Twenty of the 64 centers (31%) from 12 of 22 countries (55%) responded to the survey. Of the 20 studies, 11 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and 9 were case series. Only 4 of the RCTs plan to recruit 400 patients or more, and only 3 RCTs were blinded. The majority of studies will study the effect of CCP on sick patients requiring hospitalization and those requiring critical care, and none is examining the role of CCP in non-infected at-risk individuals. A wide variety of primary and secondary outcomes are being used. The donor eligibility criteria among the studies are very similar, and the use of plasmapheresis for the collection of CCP is almost universal. The planned dose of CCP ranges from as little as 200 mL to well over 1 L, but is 400 to 800 mL or 4 mL/kg or greater in all the RCTs. There is considerable variability in donor antibody testing with no consistency regarding the cut-off for antibody titer for acceptance as CCP or the use of pathogen-inactivation. Our survey provides an understanding of the similarities and differences among the studies of CCP, and that by virtue of their design some studies may be more informative than others.

Indexed as

BetacoronavirusCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19COVID-19 SerotherapyData CollectionDonor SelectionGlobal HealthHumansImmunization, PassiveInternational CooperationPandemicsPlasmapheresisPneumonia, ViralRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignSARS-CoV-2Clinical trialsConvalescent plasmaCOVID-19 infectionSurvey

Identifiers

PMID32703664
PMCPMC7320682
OpenAlexW3037832934

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.