SynthesisInternational journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases2021
Effect of convalescent blood products for patients with severe acute respiratory infections of viral etiology: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials testing the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Evidence-base for practise and implications for research.Transfusion medicine (Oxford, England) · 2021Pooled it
- Clinical effectiveness of convalescent plasma in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseasePooled it
- Problematic meta-analyses: Bayesian and frequentist perspectives on combining randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- A mass cytometry approach to track the evolution of T cell responses during infection and immunotherapy by paired T cell receptor repertoire and T cell differentiation state analysis.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Therapeutic role of immunomodulators during the COVID-19 pandemic- a narrative review.Postgraduate medicine · 2022Review
- Convalescent Plasma-A Light at the End of the Tunnel: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2021Article
- Safety and Efficacy of Convalescent Plasma in COVID-19: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Current systematic reviews and meta-analyses of COVID-19.World journal of virology · 2021Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Convalescent Plasma for COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Indian journal of hematology & blood transfusion : an official journal of Indian Society of Hematology and Blood Transfusion · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to determine whether convalescent blood products (CBPs) offer a survival advantage for patients with severe acute respiratory infections of viral etiology.
methodsUp-to-date trials were identified by the authors through searches of the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and medRxiv databases from inception up to September 14, 2020. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model.
resultsAccording to the observational studies, patients who received CBPs showed a decline in all-cause mortality compared with patients who did not receive CBPs (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23-0.56; p < 0.00001). However, the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed no difference between the intervention group and the control group regarding all-cause mortality (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57-1.19; p = 0.30). The use of CBPs did not increase the risk of adverse events (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.60-1.29; p = 0.51). Using CBPs earlier compared with using CBPs later was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08-0.40; p < 0.0001).
conclusionsBased on the outcomes of RCTs, CBPs may not decrease all-cause mortality. Furthermore, compared with later initiation of CBP therapy, earlier initiation of this therapy may decrease the rate of mortality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.