Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33957025›Full record

Trial reportEpidemiology and health2021

Effectiveness of hydrogen peroxide as auxiliary treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Brazil: preliminary results of a randomized double-blind clinical trial.

Marielle Bazzo Di Domênico, Henrique Cesca, Thales Henrique Jincziwski Ponciano, Renan Brandenburg Dos Santos, Ulysses Lenz, Vinícius Picoli Antunes, Vinicius Webber Godinho, Kauê Collares, Pedro Henrique Corazza

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Epidemiology and health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Evaluation of Current Evidence on the Use of Oral Antiseptics Against SARS-CoV-2: A Narrative Review.Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry
    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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marielle Bazzo Di DomênicoGraduate Program in Dentistry, Dental School, University of Passo Fundo, Passo Fundo, Brazil.
Henrique CescaGraduate Program in Dentistry, Dental School, University of Passo Fundo, Passo Fundo, Brazil.
Thales Henrique Jincziwski PoncianoGraduate Program in Dentistry, Dental School, University of Passo Fundo, Passo Fundo, Brazil.
Renan Brandenburg Dos SantosGraduate Program in Dentistry, Dental School, University of Passo Fundo, Passo Fundo, Brazil.
Ulysses LenzGraduate Program in Dentistry, Dental School, University of Passo Fundo, Passo Fundo, Brazil.
Vinícius Picoli AntunesGraduate Program in Dentistry, Dental School, University of Passo Fundo, Passo Fundo, Brazil.
Vinicius Webber GodinhoGraduate Program in Dentistry, Dental School, University of Passo Fundo, Passo Fundo, Brazil.
Kauê CollaresGraduate Program in Dentistry, Dental School, University of Passo Fundo, Passo Fundo, Brazil.
Pedro Henrique CorazzaGraduate Program in Dentistry, Dental School, University of Passo Fundo, Passo Fundo, Brazil.
Universidade de Passo Fundo · BR

Funding

Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) in the form of mouthwash and nasal spray as an auxiliary treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

methodsForty hospitalized patients who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 using a reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction test were evaluated. They were randomly divided into an experimental group (n= 20; gargling with 1.0% H2O2 and nasal wash with 0.5% H2O2) or a control group (n= 20). The solutions were used for 7 days and the patients were monitored every 2 days, for a total of 8 days. At check-ups, patients were asked about their symptoms and possible adverse effects of the solutions. The presence and severity (mild, moderate, or severe) of symptoms were recorded. Data were compared using the Student test and the Fisher exact test (α= 0.05).

resultsThere was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the length of hospital stay (p= 0.65). The most frequent symptom on day 0 was coughing (72.0% in the experimental group and 76.5% in the control group), which abated over time. There was no significant difference between the groups in the evaluated symptoms. Most (75.0%) of the patients in the experimental group presented a reduction in dyspnea between days 0 and 2. Few patients reported adverse effects from the use of the solutions.

conclusionsH2O2 as a mouthwash and nasal spray is safe to use. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that H2O2 is effective as an auxiliary treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Indexed as

COVID-19 Drug TreatmentSARS-CoV-2AdultAnti-Infective Agents, LocalBrazilCOVID-19Double-Blind MethodFemaleHospitalizationHumansHydrogen PeroxideMaleMiddle AgedMouthwashesNasal SpraysSeverity of Illness IndexAnti-Infective Agents, LocalHydrogen PeroxideMouthwashesNasal SpraysCOVID-19Hydrogen peroxideMouthwashesNasal spraysSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID33957025
PMCPMC8289471
OpenAlexW3186866532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.