Trial reportPloS one2020
A multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of hydroxychloroquine and a retrospective study in adult patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Trial report in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 22 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
61 citing papers in PubMed, 22 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.
- Drug treatments for mild or moderate covid-19: systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019: Rapid updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Reviews in medical virology · 2022Pooled it
- Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An individual participant data meta-analysis.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- The impact of therapeutics on mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analyses informing the European Respiratory Society living guideline.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2021Guideline
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine from randomized controlled trials on malarial and non-malarial conditions.Systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Clinical trials in COVID-19 management & prevention: A meta-epidemiological study examining methodological quality.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Pooled it
- Hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Scientific reports · 2021Pooled it
- Immunomodulatory therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic literature review to inform EULAR points to consider.Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2021Pooled it
- QTc prolongation in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, or lopinavir/ritonavir: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2021Pooled it
- Use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in patients with COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.Pathogens and global health · 2021Pooled it
- Mortality, viral clearance, and other clinical outcomes of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Clinical and translational science · 2021Pooled it
- Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials.Nature communications · 2021Pooled it
- Management of hospitalised adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a European Respiratory Society living guideline.The European respiratory journal · 2021Guideline
- Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for prevention and treatment of COVID-19.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Efficacy of COVID-19 Treatments: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Frontiers in public health · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review ofTheranostics · 2021Pooled it
- Clinical care of pregnant and postpartum women with COVID-19: Living recommendations from the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2020Guideline
- Interventions for treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project).PLoS medicine · 2020Pooled it
1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn this study, we evaluated the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) via a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and a retrospective study.
methodsSubjects admitted to 11 designated public hospitals in Taiwan between April 1 and May 31, 2020, with COVID-19 diagnosis confirmed by pharyngeal real-time RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2, were randomized at a 2:1 ratio and stratified by mild or moderate illness. HCQ (400 mg twice for 1 d or HCQ 200 mg twice daily for 6 days) was administered. Both the study and control group received standard of care (SOC). Pharyngeal swabs and sputum were collected every other day. The proportion and time to negative viral PCR were assessed on day 14. In the retrospective study, medical records were reviewed for patients admitted before March 31, 2020.
resultsThere were 33 and 37 cases in the RCT and retrospective study, respectively. In the RCT, the median times to negative rRT-PCR from randomization to hospital day 14 were 5 days (95% CI; 1, 9 days) and 10 days (95% CI; 2, 12 days) for the HCQ and SOC groups, respectively (p = 0.40). On day 14, 81.0% (17/21) and 75.0% (9/12) of the subjects in the HCQ and SOC groups, respectively, had undetected virus (p = 0.36). In the retrospective study, 12 (42.9%) in the HCQ group and 5 (55.6%) in the control group had negative rRT-PCR results on hospital day 14 (p = 0.70).
conclusionsNeither study demonstrated that HCQ shortened viral shedding in mild to moderate COVID-19 subjects.
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.