Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32791241›Full record

ReviewClinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases2020

Treatment of COVID-19 with convalescent plasma: lessons from past coronavirus outbreaks.

Denise J Wooding, Horacio Bach

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.0field-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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The feasibility of multiple units of convalescent plasma in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: A pilot study.Transfusion and apheresis science : official journal of the World Apheresis Association : official journal of the European Society for Haemapheresis · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Neutralizing antibody responses following natural SARS-CoV-2 infection: Dynamics and correlation with commercial serologic tests.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Denise J WoodingDepartment of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Horacio BachDepartment of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Electronic address: hbach@mail.ubc.ca.
University of British Columbia · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is currently no treatment known to alter the course of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Convalescent plasma has been used to treat a number of infections during pandemics, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and now severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2).

objectivesTo summarize the existing literature and registered clinical trials on the efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma for treating coronaviruses, and discuss issues of feasibility, and donor and patient selection. SOURCES: A review of articles published in PubMed was performed on 13 July 2020 to summarize the currently available evidence in human studies for convalescent plasma as a treatment for coronaviruses. The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry and clinicaltrials.gov were searched to summarize the currently registered randomized clinical trials for convalescent plasma in COVID-19. CONTENT: There were sixteen COVID-19, four MERS and five SARS reports describing convalescent plasma use in humans. There were two randomized control trials, both of which were for COVID-19 and were terminated early. Most COVID-19 reports described a potential benefit of convalescent plasma on clinical outcomes in severe or critically ill patients with few immediate adverse events. However, there were a number of limitations, including the concurrent use of antivirals, steroids and other treatments, small sample sizes, lack of randomization or control groups, and short follow-up time. Data from SARS and COVID-19 suggest that earlier administration probably yields better outcomes. The ideal candidates for recipients and donors are not known. Still, experience with previous coronaviruses tells us that antibodies in convalescent patients are probably short-lived. Patients who had more severe disease and who are earlier in their course of recovery may be more likely to have adequate titres. Finally, a number of practical challenges were identified. IMPLICATIONS: There is currently no effective treatment for COVID-19, and preliminary trials for convalescent plasma suggest that there may be some benefits. However, research to date is at high risk of bias, and randomized control trials are desperately needed to determine the efficacy and safety of this therapeutic option.

Indexed as

PandemicsAntiviral AgentsBetacoronavirusClinical Trials as TopicCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19COVID-19 SerotherapyHumansImmunization, PassiveMiddle East Respiratory Syndrome CoronavirusPatient SafetyPneumonia, ViralSARS-CoV-2Severe Acute Respiratory SyndromeSevere acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirusSeverity of Illness IndexAntiviral AgentsConvalescent plasmaCoronavirusCOVID-19MERS-CoVSARS-CoVSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID32791241
PMCPMC7417293
OpenAlexW3047760116

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.