ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology2022
Safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma as a therapy for SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Targeting SARS-CoV-2 and host cell receptor interactions.Antiviral research · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: The safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) in SARS-CoV-2 is promising but intriguing due to heterogeneity of published studies. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis of convalescent plasma use in COVID-19 to identify its safety and efficacy. Material and Methods: We comprehensively searched the databases - PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for journal papers published between December 2019 and January 2021 about the use of CPT in SARS-CoV-2, and performed a meta-analysis using random effects models and assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: Of 1529 records, 11 studies were eligible (five RCTs, two nonrandomized intervention trials, three prospective observational, and one retrospective), and all were conducted in confirmed patients of SARS-CoV-2. Out of the 11 studies, four investigated the effect of CPT on mortality, three on symptom alleviation, five on duration of hospital stay, four on time to discharge, three on the effect on viral clearance, three on the improvement in antibody titers, two on oxygen requirement, and two on adverse events. The pooled estimate for relative risk of death from SARS-CoV-2 was no different after CPT than control (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.69, 1.10), (p = 0.426) but the relative risk of clinical improvement of symptoms was better after CPT (RR: 1.61, 95% CI: 0.97. 2.70). There was earlier hospital discharge after CPT over control (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 0.79, 2.80), improved viral clearance (RR: 1.95; 95% CI: 1.07, 3.53), and quicker detection of antibody titer (RR: 1.95; 95% CI: 1.07, 3.53). No difference was observed for adverse effects between CPT and control (RR: 0.92.; 95% CI: 0.63 1.35). Conclusion: CPT appears to be a safe and promising treatment in moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 leading to faster clinical improvement, reduced oxygen requirement, early hospital discharge, and quicker emergence of protective antibodies despite having no mortality benefit.
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.