ReviewAnnals of internal medicine2026
Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19: A Living, Rapid Review for the American College of Physicians (Version 3).
Review in Annals of internal medicine, 2026. 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinicians and patients need updated information on antiviral treatments for COVID-19. PURPOSE: To provide a final update on the benefits and harms of COVID-19 antiviral treatments in adult outpatients. DATA SOURCES: Ovid/MEDLINE, Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE platform, and iSearch COVID-19 portfolio (22 January 2025); Ovid/MEDLINE (24 September 2025). STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers screened 20% of abstracts and full texts, then single screening. Randomized controlled trials were included for benefits and harms, and cohort studies were included for harms. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE); a second reviewer verified. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven studies from the Omicron period were included. 125 mg of ensitrelvir may not reduce time to recovery and may result in no difference in serious adverse events (both low CoE) but may increase adverse events (44.2% vs. 24.8%; low CoE). Molnupiravir probably improves recovery (31.8% vs. 22.6%) and reduces time to recovery (9 vs. 15 median days) and persistent symptoms from 3 to 6 months (8.5% vs. 11.0%), with no effect on mortality, hospitalization, serious adverse events, and adverse events (all moderate CoE). Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir may increase recovery (70.7% vs. 53.6%; low CoE) and reduce time to recovery (no data, LIMITATION: Evidence for many outcomes is limited.
conclusionThree COVID-19 antivirals improved or accelerated recovery, with varying adverse event profiles. Molnupiravir probably offers long-term benefits. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD420251029146; OSF: https://osf.io/ywp6u).
Indexed as
Identifiers
41662710What 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.