ReviewEmerging microbes & infections2021
A comparison between virus- versus patients-centred therapeutic attempts to reduce COVID-19 mortality.
Review in Emerging microbes & infections, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of oral 20-hydroxyecdysone (BIO101), a MAS receptor activator, in adults with severe COVID-19 (COVA): a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2/3 trial.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Mortality, Intensive Care Unit Admission, and Intubation among Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A One-Year Retrospective Study in Jordan.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Lidocaine reinforces the anti-inflammatory action of dexamethasone on myeloid and epithelial cells activated by inflammatory cytokines or SARS-CoV-2 infection.Biomedical journal · 2023Article
- A pilot study for treatment of severe COVID-19 pneumonia by aerosolized formulation of convalescent human immune plasma exosomes (ChipEXO™).Frontiers in immunology · 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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since December 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has changed our lives. Elderly and those with comorbidities represent the vast majority of patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 symptoms, including acute respiratory disease syndrome and cardiac dysfunction. Despite a huge effort of the scientific community, improved treatment modalities limiting the severity and mortality of hospitalized COVID-19 patients are still required. Here, we compare the effectiveness of virus- and patients-centred strategies to reduce COVID-19 mortality. We also discuss the therapeutic options that might further reduce death rates associated with the disease in the future. Unexpectedly, extensive review of the literature suggests that SARS-CoV-2 viral load seems to be associated neither with the severity of symptoms nor with mortality of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. This may explain why, so far, virus-centred strategies using antivirals aiming to inhibit the viral replicative machinery have failed to reduce COVID-19 mortality in patients with respiratory failure. By contrast, anti-inflammatory treatments without antiviral capacities but centred on patients, such as dexamethasone or Tocilizumab
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.