ArticleHeliyon2024
Clinical efficacy of N-acetylcysteine for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effect of N-Acetylcysteine on mortality in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Inflammopharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- NLRP3 inflammasomes at the ARDS-cancer interface: mechanisms and translational hypotheses.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- N-Acetylcysteine in the Treatment of Acute Lung Injury: Perspectives and Limitations.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Role of Biomarkers Diagnostic Tools in Patients with COVID-19: Stratification Made Easy.International journal of general medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The association between N-acetylcysteine (NAC) and COVID-19 remains undetermined; therefore, this meta-analysis assessed the clinical efficacy of NAC in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Methods: This study searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published from their inception to December 17, 2022. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the clinical efficacy of NAC for patients with COVID-19 were included. Results: Five RCTs involving 651 patients were included. There was no significant difference in mortality between the study group receiving NAC and the control group (15.6 % [50/320] vs. 32.3 %, [107/331]; risk ratio [RR]: 0.58; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.24-1.40). In addition, the two groups did not differ with respect to the incidence of invasive mechanical ventilation (RR: 0.93; 95 % CI: 0.65-1.33), the risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (RR: 0.86; 95 % CI: 0.62-1.21), the length of hospital stay (mean difference [MD]: 0.17 days; 95 % CI: -0.67-1.01), and the length of ICU stay (MD: -0.77 days; 95 % CI: -2.97-1.42). Conclusions: The administration of NAC did not improve the clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19; its routine use is not recommended for patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections.
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.