ReviewPakistan journal of medical sciences2025
The efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in treating severe COVID-19 patients: A meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
Review in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 2025. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Corticosteroids (CSs) are often administered for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, the advantages and disadvantages of CSs remain controversial. Accordingly, we performed a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA) to ascertain the efficacy and safety of CSs in treating COVID-19. Methods: From their inception until April 2023, PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and China Biology Medicine(CBM) were searched to gather randomized controlled trials on the administration of CSs for COVID-19 treatment. Following the literature screening according to the inclusion criteria, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted by two reviewers, and then we conducted a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis using RevMan 5.4 and TSA v0.9, respectively. This meta-analysis adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023458633). Results: A total of 6,077 literatures were obtained through the search, and 14 studies were finally included for quantitative meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that the all-cause mortality in the group treated with CSs and standard treatment was significantly lower than that in the control group that received only standard treatment (RR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.82-0.96, P=0.002), with a statistically significant difference. However, the TSA analysis revealed that the cumulative Z value exceeded the traditional boundary value yet did not surpass the TSA boundary value, indicating a possibility of false positive outcomes in the meta-analysis. The incidence of adverse reactions in the group receiving CSs treatment was higher than that in the control group, but the distinction was not statistically significant (RR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.64-1.63, P=0.93). Conclusion: CSs appear to be effective and safe in decreasing the overall mortality of patients who suffer from severe COVID-19; however, further assessment is required to determine adverse reactions and improvements in clinical symptoms associated with CS administration.
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.