Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38152831›Full record

ReviewJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2023

Evaluation of Global Post-Outbreak COVID-19 Treatment Interventions: A Systematic Review and Bibliometric Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Mohammed Alfaqeeh, Neily Zakiyah, Auliya A Suwantika, Zahratu Shabrina

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Digital Competence of Rural Teachers in Depopulated Regions of Spain: A Bibliometric Review.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mohammed AlfaqeehDepartment of Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0002-4079-869X
Neily ZakiyahDepartment of Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0002-9630-5567
Auliya A SuwantikaDepartment of Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0001-8671-2065
Zahratu ShabrinaDepartment of Geography, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The outbreak of COVID-19 has led to a global pandemic with millions of cases and deaths. Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted to establish effective therapies. However, the methodological quality of these trials is paramount, as it directly impacts the reliability of results. This systematic review and bibliometric analysis aim to assess the methodological approach, execution diversity, global trends, and distribution of COVID-19 treatment RCTs post-outbreak, covering the period from the second wave and onward up to the present. Methods: We utilize articles from three electronic databases published from September 1, 2020, to April 1, 2023. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to identify relevant RCTs. Data extraction involved the collection of various study details. Risk of Bias (RoB) 2 tool assessed methodological quality, while implementation variability was evaluated against registration information. Bibliometric analysis, including keyword co-occurrence and country distribution, used VOSviewer and Tableau software. Results: Initially, 501 studies were identified, but only 22 met the inclusion criteria, of which 19 had registration information. The methodological quality assessment revealed deficiencies in five main domains: randomization process (36%), deviations from intended interventions (9%), missing outcome data (4%), measurement of the outcome (18%), and selection of reported results (4%). An analysis of alignment between research protocols and registration data revealed common deviations in eight critical aspects. Bibliometric findings showcased global collaboration in COVID-19 treatment RCTs, with Iran and Brazil prominently contributing, while keyword co-occurrence analysis illuminated prominent research trends and terms in study titles and abstracts. Conclusion: This study offers valuable insights into the evaluation of COVID-19 treatment RCTs. The scarcity of high-quality RCTs highlights the importance of enhancing trial rigor and transparency in global health emergencies.

Indexed as

COVID-19diversity in executiongeographic distributionkeyword trendsmethodological qualityrandomized controlled trials

Identifiers

PMID38152831
PMCPMC10752030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.