Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35357033›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2022

Efficacy of pharmacological interventions in COVID-19: A network meta-analysis.

Sandhiya Selvarajan, Annuja Anandaradje, Santhosh Shivabasappa, Deepthy Melepurakkal Sadanandan, N Sreekumaran Nair, Melvin George

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sandhiya SelvarajanDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, JIPMER, Puducherry, India.ORCID 0000-0002-7948-7821
Annuja AnandaradjeDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, JIPMER, Puducherry, India.ORCID 0000-0002-1020-1282
Santhosh ShivabasappaDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, JIPMER, Puducherry, India.ORCID 0000-0001-7871-1038
Deepthy Melepurakkal SadanandanDepartment of Biostatistics, JIPMER, Puducherry, India.ORCID 0000-0001-8547-2901
N Sreekumaran NairDepartment of Biostatistics, JIPMER, Puducherry, India.ORCID 0000-0002-0020-0796
Melvin GeorgeDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, SRM Medical College Hospital & Research Centre, SRMIST, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.ORCID 0000-0001-7101-8513
Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research · INSri Ramachandra Medical Centre · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo perform network meta-analysis for a head-to-head comparison of various interventions used in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on mortality, clinical recovery, time to clinical improvement and the occurrence of serious adverse events.

methodsSystematic search was performed using online databases with suitable MeSH terms including coronavirus, COVID-19, randomized controlled trial, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, tocilizumab, remdesivir, favipiravir, dexamethasone and interferon-β. Data were independently extracted by 2 study investigators and analysed.

resultsOut of 1225 studies screened, 23 were included for qualitative and quantitative analysis. Among the drugs studied, dexamethasone reduces mortality by 10%, with a relative risk of 0.90 (95% confidence interval [0.82-0.97]) and increases clinical recovery by 6% (relative risk 1.06, 95% confidence interval [1.02-1.10]) compared to standard of care. Similarly, remdesivir administered for 10 days increased clinical recovery by 10%, reduced time to clinical improvement by 4 days and lowered the occurrence of serious adverse events by 27% as compared to standard of care.

conclusionIn comparison to standard of care, dexamethasone was found to increase clinical recovery and lower mortality; remdesivir was significantly associated with a lower risk of mortality as compared to tocilizumab and higher clinical recovery and shorter time to clinical improvement as compared to hydroxychloroquine and tocilizumab; remdesivir followed by tocilizumab were found to have lesser occurrence of serious adverse events in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19.

Indexed as

Antiviral AgentsCOVID-19 Drug TreatmentDexamethasoneHumansHydroxychloroquineLopinavirRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeAntiviral AgentsDexamethasoneHydroxychloroquineLopinavirclinical recoverydexamethasonehydroxychloroquinemortalityremdesivir

Identifiers

PMID35357033
PMCPMC9111227
OpenAlexW4220940021

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.