ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2022
A systematic review and meta‑analysis of Arbidol therapy for acute respiratory viral infections: A potential treatment for COVID‑19.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- From neuraminidase inhibitors to novel mechanisms: expanding therapeutic strategies against influenza.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Potential Broad-Spectrum Antiviral Agents: A Key Arsenal Against Newly Emerging and Reemerging Respiratory RNA Viruses.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Arbidol (ARB) is efficacious for the treatment of influenza, and has been recommended for COVID-19. The present systematic review was performed to assess the existing knowledge on ARB therapy for acute respiratory viral infections, especially COVID-19. Subsequently, six databases were searched for publications reporting clinical outcomes of ARB therapy, and registered clinical trials up to May 6, 2022. The available literature was rigorously appraised. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 20 articles were identified for the final review. The result of meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the negative rate of PCR day 7 [risk ratio (RR), 1.1; 95% CI, 0.87-1.40], negative rate of PCR day 14 (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.92-1.67), PCR negative conversion time [mean difference (MD), -0.26; 95% CI, -1.41-0.90], time of clinical improvement (MD, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.01-2.22), hospital stay (MD, 0.16; 95% CI, -1.62-1.93), rate of improvement on chest computed tomography (CT) (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.74-1.91), duration of CT absorption (MD, -1.43; 95% CI, -10.28-7.42), disease progression (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.64-1.71) and mortality (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.42-1.11). ARB demonstrated significant difference in the rate of clinical improvement (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.97), duration of fever (MD, -0.38; 95% CI, -0.74- -0.02) and adverse events (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45-0.94). Although past clinical studies indicates notable results of ARB on influenza, there is no consensus on the drug for therapeutic and prophylaxis of COVID-19. The safety of ARB should be carefully monitored. High quality randomized controlled studies are urgently needed to thoroughly evaluate the efficacy and safety of ARB in patients with acute respiratory viral infections, especially COVID-19.
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.