Benefits and risks of zinc for adults during covid-19: rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT Objective To evaluate the benefits and risks of any type of zinc intervention to prevent or treat SARS-CoV-2. Design A living, systematic review and meta-analysis, incorporating rapid review methods. Data sources 17 English and Chinese databases and clinical trial registries were searched in April/May 2020, with additional covid-19 focused searches in June and August 2020. Eligibilitycriteria and analysis Randomized control trials (RCTs) published in any language comparing zinc to a control to prevent or treat SARS-CoV-2. Other viral respiratory tract infections (RTIs) were included, but the certainty of evidence downgraded twice for indirectness. Screening, data extraction, risk of bias appraisal (RoB-2 tool) and verification was performed by calibrated, single reviewers. RCTs with adult populations were prioritised for analysis. Results 123 RCTs were identified. None were specific to SARS-CoV-2 nor other coronaviruses. 28 RCTs evaluated oral (15-45mg daily), sublingual (45-300mg daily), or topical nasal (0.09-2.6 mg daily) zinc to prevent or treat nonspecific viral RTIs in 3,597 adults without zinc deficiency. Compared to placebo, zinc prevented 5 mild to moderate RTIs per 100 person-months, including in older adults (95% confidence interval 1 to 9) (number needed to treat (NTT)=20). There was no significant difference in the rates of non-serious adverse events (AE). For RTI treatment, a clinically important reduction in peak symptom severity scores was found for zinc compared to placebo (mean difference 1.2 points, 0.7 to 1.7), but not average daily symptom severity (standardised mean difference 0.2, 0.1 to 0.4). 19 fewer per 100 adults were at risk of remaining symptomatic over the first 7 days (2 to 38, NNT=5) and the mean duration of symptoms was 2 days shorter (0.2 to 3.5), however, there was substantial heterogeneity (I 2 = 82% and 97%). 14 more per 100 experienced a non-serious AE (4 to 16, NNT=7) such as nausea, or mouth or nasal irritation. No differences in illness duration nor AE were found when zinc was compared to active controls. No serious AE, including copper deficiency, were reported by any RCT. Quality of life outcomes were not assessed. Confidence in these findings for SARS-CoV-2 is very low due to serious indirectness and some concerns about bias for most outcomes. Conclusions Zinc is a potential therapeutic candidate for preventing and treating SARS-CoV-2, including older adults and adults without zinc deficiency (very low certainty). Zinc may also help to prevent other viral RTIs during the pandemic (moderate certainty) and reduce the severity and duration of symptoms (very low certainty). The pending results from seven RCTs evaluating zinc for SARS-CoV-2 will be tracked. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020182044
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,042 | 0,096 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,028 | 0,042 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,012 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».