ArticleResearch in pharmaceutical sciences
Efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Research in pharmaceutical sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Case Report: Successful treatment of recurrent COVID-19 with intravenous immunoglobulin in a patient with rituximab-induced B-cell depletion and restoration of Fc-mediated effector functions.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Octreotide and direct/indirect lung injury.Research in pharmaceutical sciences · 2025Review
- Expression and purification of SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain inResearch in pharmaceutical sciences · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Immunoglobulin (IVIG) in Moderate-to-Severe Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Randomized, Open-Label Parallel-Group Study.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Though controversial, many clinical trials have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) in COVID-19 cases. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis have been performed to evaluate the efficacy of IVIG in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Experimental approach: A systematic search was performed in electronic databases and preprint servers up to November 20, 2021. Since substantial heterogeneity was expected, a random-effects model was applied to pool effect size from included studies to calculate the standardized mean differences (SMDs) for the continuous variables and relative risks (RRs) for the dichotomous variable with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Findings/Results: Five randomized clinical trials and seven cohort studies were analyzed among the 12 eligible studies with a total of 2,156 patients. The pooled RR of mortality was 0.77 (CI 0.59-1.01, Conclusion and implications: This meta-analysis found that the IVIG therapy was not statistically different from the standard care group. Mortality, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, length of hospital stay, and length of ICU stay were not significantly improved among IVIG recipients. However, statistical indifference is not equal to clinical indifference.
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.