Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34579942›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of anaesthesia2021

Convalescent plasma for COVID-19: a meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis, and meta-regression.

Timothy A C Snow, Naveed Saleem, Gareth Ambler, Eleni Nastouli, Laura E McCoy, Mervyn Singer, Nishkantha Arulkumaran

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of anaesthesia, 2021. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Comprehensive evaluation of six interventions for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A propensity score matching study.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Special focus issue: passive immunization.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2022
    Article
  12. Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022
    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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Timothy A C SnowBloomsbury Institute of Intensive Care Medicine, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, UK.
Naveed SaleemBloomsbury Institute of Intensive Care Medicine, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, UK.
Gareth AmblerDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK.
Eleni NastouliDepartment of Clinical Virology, University College London, London, UK.
Laura E McCoyDivision of Infection and Immunity, University College London, London, UK.
Mervyn SingerBloomsbury Institute of Intensive Care Medicine, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, UK.
Nishkantha ArulkumaranBloomsbury Institute of Intensive Care Medicine, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, UK. Electronic address: nisharulkumaran@doctors.net.uk.
University College London · GBBury College · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R008698/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific antibodies, particularly those preventing interaction between the viral spike receptor-binding domain and the host angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor, may prevent viral entry into host cells and disease progression.

methodsWe performed a systematic review, meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis (TSA), and meta-regression of RCTs to evaluate the benefit of convalescent plasma for COVID-19. The primary outcome was 28-30 day mortality. Secondary outcomes included need for mechanical ventilation and ICU admission. Data sources were PubMed, Embase, MedRxiv, and the Cochrane library on July 2, 2021.

resultsWe identified 17 RCTs that recruited 15 587 patients with 8027 (51.5%) allocated to receive convalescent plasma. Convalescent plasma use was not associated with a mortality benefit (24.7% vs 25.5%; odds ratio [OR]=0.94 [0.85-1.04]; P=0.23; I

conclusionsIn patients with COVID-19, there was no clear mortality benefit associated with convalescent plasma treatment. In patients with mild disease, convalescent plasma did not prevent either the need for mechanical ventilation or ICU admission. CLINICAL

trial registrationCRD42021234201 (PROSPERO).

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 SerotherapyHumansImmunization, PassiveRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRegression AnalysisRespiration, ArtificialTreatment Outcomeantibodiesconvalescent plasmaCOVID-19meta-analysispassive immunisation

Identifiers

PMID34579942
PMCPMC8403663
OpenAlexW3198470334

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.