ArticleRevista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health2025
Delivering rapid, up-to-date, high-quality evidence is feasible during health emergencies: PAHO living systematic review of 305 COVID-19 potential therapeutics.
Article in Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scope, Prospects, and Limitations of Living Systematic Reviews in Medical Literature: A Narrative Overview.Cureus · 2026Review
- Building national health research agendas and defining research questions.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To develop a living systematic review to deliver continuous, real-time evidence synthesis in the context of a rapidly evolving landscape of studies on potential therapeutic interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The living systematic review was conducted using the COVID-19 Living Overview of Evidence platform, which aggregates studies from more than 40 sources, including electronic databases and preprint servers. Daily searches identified randomized controlled trials assessing pharmacological interventions for COVID-19. Meta-analytical pooling was applied to derive precise effect estimates, and the GRADE framework was used to assess certainty. The iterative process ensured the continuous integration of new evidence and rapid updates to the review. Results: The review evaluated 305 interventions across 924 randomized controlled trials and included 48 updates from its launch in April 2020. This dynamic process allowed the team to respond promptly to decision-maker queries and deliver reliable information on intervention effectiveness and safety. The outputs of the review supported the development of therapeutic guidelines and informed decision-makers, playing a pivotal role in shaping clinical practices and public health strategies during the pandemic. Conclusions: The living systematic review approach demonstrated how dynamic evidence synthesis can meet the demands of a rapidly evolving global health crisis. By providing decision-makers with timely, high-quality evidence, the process underscored the importance of integrating living reviews into preparedness strategies for future public health emergencies or rapidly evolving fields where new evidence emerges quickly.
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.