Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32892293›Full record

SynthesisNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2021

Hydroxychloroquine use and progression or prognosis of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yanxiang Zang, Xuejie Han, Meijiao He, Jing Shi, Yue Li

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for prevention and treatment of COVID-19.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Yanxiang ZangDepartment of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, 23 Youzheng Street, Nangang District, Harbin, Heilongjiang, People's Republic of China.
Xuejie HanDepartment of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, 23 Youzheng Street, Nangang District, Harbin, Heilongjiang, People's Republic of China.
Meijiao HeDepartment of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, 23 Youzheng Street, Nangang District, Harbin, Heilongjiang, People's Republic of China.
Jing ShiDepartment of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, 23 Youzheng Street, Nangang District, Harbin, Heilongjiang, People's Republic of China.
Yue LiDepartment of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, 23 Youzheng Street, Nangang District, Harbin, Heilongjiang, People's Republic of China. ly99ly@vip.163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7727-905X
Harbin Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been implicated in antiviral activity in vitro against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, there is still controversy about whether HCQ should be used for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients due to the conflicting results in different clinical trials. To systematically assess the benefits and harms of HCQ for the treatment of COVID-19. Data sources were systematically searched from Pubmed, Biorxiv, ChiCTR, Clinicalrials.gov , and the Cochrane library of RCTs for studies published from inception to June 1, 2020, to obtain any possible inclusion. This meta-analysis of inclusion criteria was directed on the basis of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Pooled studies by the title and abstract were screened and removed in the light of meta-analysis by two reviewers. Seven studies involving 851 participants with COVID-19 were eligible for analysis. There was no significant difference in RT-PCR negative conversion between HCQ group and standard treatment (ST) group (RR = 1.11, 95% CI = 0.77-1.59, P = 0.591). The rate of exacerbated pneumonia on chest CT in HCQ group was lower than that in ST group (RR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.20-0.94, P = 0.035). There was no statistical difference in progressed illness between the HCQ group and the ST group (RR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.18-2.43, P = 0.530). Death (RR = 1.92, 95% CI = 1.26-2.93, P = 0.003) was distinctly different in HCQ group compared with ST group in the treatment of COVID-19. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that there was no robust evidence to support prescribing HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19.

Indexed as

COVID-19 Drug TreatmentAdultAntiviral AgentsCOVID-19Disease ProgressionEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleHumansHydroxychloroquineMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeAntiviral AgentsHydroxychloroquineCOVID-19HydroxychloroquineMeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID32892293
PMCPMC7474863
OpenAlexW3083204490

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.