ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2022
CoRe study: COVID-19 and remdesivir: An insight into the current health planning and policy.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Drug utilisation patterns & clinical outcomes in hospitalised COVID-19 patients: A geospatial & machine learning approach.The Indian journal of medical research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The ongoing coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has witnessed rampant use of the repurposed drug, remdesivir, despite its conflicting evidence and rapidly changing guidelines. Methods: A cross-sectional, country-wide, questionnaire-based, electronic survey was conducted among the healthcare professionals involved in COVID-19 management from April 18 to May 18, 2021. Results: Out of 231 responses, 185 were included. Significantly, greater knowledge of trials was reported by the frontline healthcare professionals compared to those who are not involved in COVID-19 care. Medicine practitioners and pulmonologists expressed greater willingness to continue remdesivir (Odds ratio (OR) 5.329, 95% Confidence interval (CI) 2.31-12.291 and 5.063, 95% CI 1.414-18.129, respectively). The rationale attributed was personal experience, current guidelines, non-availability of any alternate antiviral drug, expert recommendations, and local hospital policy either alone (20%, 8.1%, 5.9%, 2.7%, and 2.2%, respectively) or in combination (46.5%, 39.5%, 29.2%, 21.1%, and 15.7%, respectively). Awareness of evidence and knowledge of landmark studies made no statistically significant impact on clinical decision-making. Improved clinical outcomes were reported by 10/22 (45.4%) practitioners who used remdesivir for unconventional indications. Conclusion: The study throws critical insights into the current perspectives of doctors on remdesivir in clinical management and its potential impact on current health planning strategies.
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.