ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2021
Retrospective evaluation of seven different treatment protocols in hospitalized COVID-19 patients
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The efficacy and safety of remdesivir alone and in combination with other drugs for the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Pooled it
- Remdesivir treatment for patients with moderate to severe COVID-19.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: As the experience has increased regarding SARS-CoV-2 in time, treatment trends have changed since the beginning of the pandemic. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of different treatment modalities for inpatients in a tertiary pandemic hospital in Antalya, Turkey. Materials and methods: Individuals aged 18 years and above who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in PCR with presenting COVID-related radiological findings, hospitalized for at least 3 days, and completed follow-up between March 15, 2020 and November 30, 2020 were included in the study. Patients’ data were reviewed retrospectively. Seven treatment groups based on the single or combined use of hydroxychloroquine, oseltamivir, favipiravir, and remdesivir were formed and compared in terms of mortality, survival, length of hospital stay, need for intensive care, and mechanical ventilation. Results: A total of 321 patients were included in the study. The length of hospital stay, the need for intensive care, and mechanical ventilation were lower in Group 1 (hydroxychloroquine) and Group 2 (hydroxychloroquine + oseltamivir) compared to the other groups (p < 0.05). No significant difference was determined in survival between treatment groups. Analysis of prognostic factors affecting overall survival revealed that the need for intensive care and mechanical ventilation increased mortality [11.1 times (p < 0.001) and 6.48 times (p < 0.001), respectively]. Conclusion: No significant difference was determined between different treatment protocols in terms of their impact on survival. To end the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an urgent need to develop highly efficient, rapid-acting, and orally available antiviral drugs.
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.