Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33463727›Full record

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.

Dorna Kheirabadi, Fatemeh Haddad, Razieh S Mousavi-Roknabadi, Mohammad Rezaeisadrabadi, Hamidreza Dehghan, Aylar Fazlzadeh

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Methanol poisoning during COVID-19 pandemic; A systematic scoping review.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2022
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Dorna KheirabadiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Fatemeh HaddadDepartment of Medical Physiology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Razieh S Mousavi-RoknabadiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, IR, Iran.ORCID 0000-0001-9483-8848
Mohammad RezaeisadrabadiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-7225-2499
Hamidreza DehghanDepartment of Biostatics, Research Center for Health Technology Assessment and Medical Informatics, School of Public Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.
Aylar FazlzadehDepartment of Internal Medicine, Masih Daneshvari hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences · IRIsfahan University of Medical Sciences · IRMasih Daneshvari Hospital · IRShahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences · IRShahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences and Health Services · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Antiviral AgentsCOVID-19Adenosine MonophosphateAlanineAmidesChloroquineCOVID-19 Drug TreatmentCytokine Release SyndromeDatabases, FactualHumansHydroxychloroquineImmunoglobulinsLopinavirPandemicsPyrazinesRespiration, ArtificialAdenosine MonophosphateAlanineAmidesAntiviral AgentsChloroquinefavipiravirHydroxychloroquineImmunoglobulinsLopinavirPyrazinesremdesivirRitonavirCoronavirusCOVID-19pandemictreatment

Identifiers

PMID33463727
PMCPMC8013306
OpenAlexW3124990073

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.