Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33549577›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of pharmacology2021

Remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19; an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Afra Rezagholizadeh, Sajad Khiali, Parvin Sarbakhsh, Taher Entezari-Maleki

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of pharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

67 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 111 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. RETRACTED: Remdesivir Efficacy in COVID-19 Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2021
    Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Rationale for Use of Sphingosine-1-Phosphate Receptor Modulators in COVID-19 Patients: Overview of Scientific Evidence.Journal of interferon & cytokine research : the official journal of the International Society for Interferon and Cytokine Research · 2023
    Review
  20. Article

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Afra RezagholizadehDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Sajad KhialiDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Parvin SarbakhshAssistant Professor of Biostatistics, Department of Statistics and Epidemiology, Faculty of Public Health, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Taher Entezari-MalekiDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran; Cardiovascular Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran. Electronic address: tentezari@gmail.com.
Tabriz University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become a global health crisis. Considering the recent food and drug administration (FDA) approval of remdesivir as the first officially approved agent for COVID-19 treatment, we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remdesivir administration in COVID-19 patients. A systematic literature search was done through MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, medRxiv, and bioRxiv from their inception to December 22nd, 2020. Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five non-randomized studies of intervention (NRSI) were entered into the meta-analysis. The results showed that remdesivir administration was associated with a significant improvement in the 28-day recovery (RR = 1.09, 95%CI, 1.04-1.15), low flow oxygen support through days one to 14 (RR = 2.88, 95%CI, 1.80-4.60), and invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation requirement through days 14-28 of the follow-up time (RR = 5.34, 95%CI, 2.37-12.05). The risk of experiencing serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs) was significantly lower (RR = 0.75, 95%CI, 0.63-0.90) in the remdesivir group than the comparison/control group. The pooled median difference of the time to clinical improvement was 2.99 (95%CI = 2.71-3.28), which did not remain significant during the sensitivity analysis. The clinical output comparison of the 5-day and 10-day remdesivir courses revealed that the 5-day regimen might provide similar benefits while causing fewer serious ADRs than 10-day. The current meta-analysis provided an updated evaluation of scientific evidence on the use of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients. Performing adequate well-designed RCTs are needed to show more accurate results.

Indexed as

COVID-19 Drug TreatmentAdenosine MonophosphateAlanineAntiviral AgentsHumansPandemicsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeAdenosine MonophosphateAlanineAntiviral AgentsremdesivirCoronavirusCOVID-19Meta-analysisRemdesivirSARS-CoV-2Systematic review

Identifiers

PMID33549577
PMCPMC7859696
OpenAlexW3126436471

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.