ReviewBiochemical and biophysical research communications2021
Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in the prophylaxis and therapy of COVID-19 infection.
Review in Biochemical and biophysical research communications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nasal inhalation of antiviral microparticulate powders to target early infection of upper airways.Drug delivery and translational research · 2026Article
- A retrospective comparison of drugs against COVID-19.Virus research · 2021Article
- Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19: the never-ending story.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2021Review
- Targeting Endolysosomal Two-Pore Channels to Treat Cardiovascular Disorders in the Novel COronaVIrus Disease 2019.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
- Challenges and Opportunities from Targeting Inflammatory Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
At the end of last century a prominent biochemist once opened the discussion of a controversial issue in the field of Bioenergetics with the following statement: "This is a long story, that shouldn't be long, but it will take a long time to make it short". As it happens, such a statement would apply perfectly well to the story of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the COVID-19 infection: it has become a veritable saga, with conflicting views that have often gone beyond the normal scientific dialectic, and with conclusions that have frequently been polluted by non scientific opinions: thus, for instance, when National Agencies have taken positions against CQ and HCQ, the move has been seen as a pro-vaccine attempt to block low cost therapy means. And it is difficult to avoid the feeling that the opposition to CQ and HCQ has in large measure been shaped not by scientific arguments, but by the fact that their use has been strongly endorsed by National leaders whose popularity among Western intellectuals is extremely low. The role of the two drugs in the COVID-19 infection thus deserves an objective analysis solely based on scientific facts. This contribution will attempt to produce it.
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.