SynthesisScience progress
Publications and retracted articles of COVID-19 pharmacotherapy-related research: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Science progress. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retractions of Health Economic Evaluations: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Pooled it
- Prognostic Factors of COVID-19: An Umbrella Review Endorsed by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2023Pooled it
- Ethical Challenges of the “Publish or Perish” Culture in Clinical Research: Insights from the COVID-19 PandemicBalkan medical journal · 2025Article
- Article
- The Fragility of Scientific Rigour and Integrity in "Sped up Science": Research Misconduct, Bias, and Hype and in the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2023Article
- Research integrity during the COVID-19 pandemic: Perspectives of health science researchers at an Academic Health Science Center.Accountability in research · 2023Article
- COVID-19 retracted publications on retraction watch: A systematic survey of their pre-prints and citations.Heliyon · 2023Article
- The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review.PloS one · 2023Article
- How COVID-19 Affected the Journal Impact Factor of High Impact Medical Journals: Bibliometric Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Upcoming and urgent challenges in critical care research based on COVID-19 pandemic experience.Anaesthesia, critical care & pain medicine · 2022Review
- COVID-19 article retractions in journals indexed in PubMed.The American journal of the medical sciences · 2022Article
- Ethical, regulatory, and practical barriers to COVID-19 research: A stakeholder-informed inventory of concerns.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current COVID-19 pandemic situation has stimulated an unplanned clinical research paradigm which is evident from the surge of clinical trial registrations and the increasing number of COVID-related publications. We aimed to explore the standards for research conduction, publications and retraction of articles related to COVID-19 pharmacotherapy research during the pandemic. We analysed data from the contemporary literatures on studies reporting pharmacological agents for COVID-19 using MEDLINE, PubMed, WHO database and Google Scholar between January 01, 2020 and March 20, 2021. The initial search revealed a total of 61,801 articles. Based on the inclusion criteria, a total of 124 studies related to various pharmacological agents were included in the final analysis. Most of the studies were reported from the United States (
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.