ReviewJournal of medical virology2021
A complementary critical appraisal on systematic reviews regarding the most efficient therapeutic strategies for the current COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic.
Review in Journal of medical virology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness and safety of Jinshuibao capsules in treatment of residual cardiopulmonary symptoms in convalescent patients of coronavirus disease 2019: a pilot randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Prevalence and correlates of depression and anxiety among nursing staff in the post-COVID-19 era: a cross-sectional study from southern Iran.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Comparison the effects and side effects of Covid-19 vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD): a systematic scoping review.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Methanol poisoning during COVID-19 pandemic; A systematic scoping review.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2022Article
- Corticosteroids use for COVID-19: an overview of systematic reviews.Le infezioni in medicina · 2022Review
- Investigation of plasma exchange and hemoperfusion effects and complications for the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) disease: A systematic scoping review.Journal of medical virology · 2021Article
- Protecting older patients with cardiovascular diseases from COVID-19 complications using current medications.European geriatric medicine · 2021Review
- A complementary critical appraisal on systematic reviews regarding the most efficient therapeutic strategies for the current COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic.Journal of medical virology · 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
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis critical appraisal aims to clarify which systematic reviews on COVID-19 treatment are based on high-value evidence. Hereby, the most profitable medicines can be suggested.
methodsThe mesh terms of "COVID-19 drug treatment" (Supplementary Concept) and "COVID-19 drug treatment" were sequentially utilized as search strategies in Medline and Science direct on October 18, 2020. Searches were confined to systematic reviews/meta-analyses. The Cochrane database was searched on November 1, 2020 with "COVID." With adding up four articles from other resources, 84 systematic reviews were considered for initial screening. Finally, 22 articles fulfilled the criteria and were assessed using PRISMA guidelines.
resultsIncreasing number of clinical trials from the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are not only profitable but also deleterious. Lopinavir/ritonavir failed to maintain their initial efficacy in improving clinical symptoms and mortality rate. Steroids and tocilizumab were suggested in patients with intensely severe symptoms. Steroids reduced mechanical ventilation and death in severely ill patients. Plasma or immunoglobulins effects are absolutely controversial. Favorable impressions of remdesivir have been relied on for the early onset of this drug. Hypotension and abnormal liver function tests were realized as its side effects. Favipiravir has resulted in a higher viral clearance than remdesivir. However, this claim needs to be proved with subsequent clinical trials.
conclusionsCurrently, remdesivir and favipiravir are advantageous drugs that should be administered in the early phases. Their side effects are not well known and need to be found in the following research projects. Steroids and tocilizumab have been considered beneficial in the cytokine storm phase.
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.