Trial reportWorld journal of clinical cases2022
Role of H
Trial report in World journal of clinical cases, 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.
- Infectious disease research in forcibly displaced populations: A systematic review in low- and middle-income host countries.Journal of migration and health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic putting the population at a high risk of infection-related health hazards, mortality and a potential failure of proper medical therapies. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the potential use of the existing drugs that could be used as options for the medical management of COVID-19 patients.
aimTo evaluate the role of the H
methodsThis study was done on seriously ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) from different institutes in Bangladesh. Patients were divided into famotidine treatment group "A" (famotidine 40 mg to 60 mg oral formulation every 8 h with other treatment as given), and control group "B" (treatment as given). National early warning score (NEWS)-2, and sequential organ failure assessment day-1 score was calculated to evaluate the outcome. Outcomes were evaluated by the time required for clinical improvement, characterized as duration required from enrollment to the achievement of NEWS-2 of ≤ 2 maintained for 24 h; time to symptomatic recovery, defined as the duration in days (from randomization) required for the recovery of the COVID-19 symptoms; mortality rate; duration of ICU and hospital stay; total period of hospitalization; the rate of supplementary oxygen requirement; the computed tomography (CT) chest recovery (%), the time required for the viral clearance and "NEWS-2" on discharge.
resultsA total of 208 patients were enrolled in this study with 104 patients in each group. The famotidine treatment group had comparatively better recovery of 75% and a low mortality of 25% than the control with a recovery of 70% and a mortality of 30%. Duration of clinical improvement (group A 9.53 d, group B 14.21 d); hospitalization period among the recovered patients (group A 13.04 d, group B 16.31 d), pulmonary improvement in chest CT (group A 21.7%, group B 13.2%), and the time for viral clearance (group A 20.7 d, group B 23.8 d) were found to be statistically significant
conclusionAccording to our study, treatment with famotidine achieved a better clinical outcome compared to the control group in severe COVID-19 illness, although no significant survival benefit was found.
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.