Perceived efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in observational studies: Results of the confounding effect of "goals of care".

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Overlooked Shortcomings of Observational Studies of Interventions in Coronavirus Disease 2019: An Illustrated Review for the Clinician.Open forum infectious diseases · 2021
   Review
2. Reply to "The perceived efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in observational studies: the results of the confounding effects of 'goals of care'".International journal of antimicrobial agents · 2021
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Reply to "The perceived efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in observational studies: the results of the confounding effects of 'goals of care'".2021
• Comment on
  Low-dose hydroxychloroquine therapy and mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a nationwide observational study of 8075 participants.2020

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as