ReviewLung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society
Anti-coagulation therapy on COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society. 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.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A once often neglected virus from common practice has been demanding the attention of all researchers for the past decade ever since it started to infect humans from its usual wild habitats. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection in humans is now found to have frequent manifestations of thromboembolic events as a result of a hyper-coagulable state. Anti-coagulants (ACs) have been suggested to overcome such a state, and studies have been conducted to assess its role. The objective of this meta-analysis is to determine the existence of such a role and its nature, either beneficial or not, and to assess the strength of this role if it exists. We have conducted an online search in the databases such as PubMed, Google scholar, Lancet, Elsevier, JAMA, Medline, and so on and concluded ten studies among 2562 that had results which were more precise and of better quality. The results of six studies favored the use of ACs, whereas one study showed no beneficial response and four studies discussed the effects of therapeutic versus prophylactic anti-coagulation. The result of our statistical analysis was that the odds ratio for mortality reduction of ACs in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients is 0.6757 (95% CI; 0.5148 to 0.961) and that for benefits of therapeutic ACs versus prophylactic ACs in COVID-19 patients is 0.809 (95% CI; 0.6137 to 1.1917). AC was associated with lower mortality and intubation among hospitalised COVID-19 patients. Compared with therapeutic AC, prophylactic AC was associated with lower mortality, although not statistically significant, and lower bleeding risks.
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.