ArticleEthiopian medical journal2023
Comparative efficacy and safety of anti-infective drugs for patients with mild to severe COVID-19: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Ethiopian medical journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Different anti-infective drugs have been proposed for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We carried out a network meta-analysis to assess their relative efficacy and safety. Methods: We searched relevant databases for all randomized controlled trials that reported the efficacy and or safety of any anti-infective drugs published up to April 30, 2022 for different outcomes. We did both pairwise and network meta-analysis with 95% confidence intervals using a fixed-effect model. We assessed studies for quality of evidence using an extension of the standard Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach considering P<0.05 to be statistically significant. Results: We included 68 RCTs for 27,680 participants on 22 anti-infective drugs. For clinical recovery at 14 days Ivermectin (OR= 3.00, 95%CI: [1.82; 4.96]; p < 0.0001; moderate certainty evidence), Baricitinib plus Remdesivir (OR= 2.20, 95%CI: [1.35; 3.53]; p = 0.005; low certainty evidence), and Favipiravir (OR= 2.16, 95%CI: [1.27; 3.68]; p = 0.004; moderate certainty evidence) were statistically effective than standard of care. There was no statistically significant difference between treatments for the viral clearance at 14 days outcome and standard of care. In terms of death outcome, only combined therapy of Baricitinib and Remdesivir showed statistically significant risks of ratio (RR= 0.47, 95%CI: [0.23; 0.99]; p = 0.03). Arbidol (RR= 0.46, 95% CI: [0.23; 0.95]; p = 0.04) was statistically safe drug than standard of care. Conclusion: This Network Meta-analysis suggests that Baricitinib plus Remdesivir is more effective than the other anti-infective drugs in treating patients with COVID-19 in terms of clinical recovery at 14 days, mortality and adverse events outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38314347PMC10836338W4394767570What 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.