MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3029004538 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.200647

Efficacy and safety of antiviral treatment for COVID-19 from evidence in studies of SARS-CoV-2 and other acute viral infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3029004538 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Wei Liu, Pengxiang Zhou, Ken Chen, Zhikang Ye, Fang Liu, Xiaotong Li, Na He, Ziyang Wu, Qi Zhang, Xuepeng Gong, Qiyu Tang, Xin Du, Yingqiu Ying, Xiaohan Xu, Yahui Zhang, Jinyu Liu, Yun Li, Ning Shen, Rachel Couban, Quazi Ibrahim, Gordon Guyatt, Suodi Zhai

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Meta-analysis2019-20 coronavirus outbreakVirologyMedicineSars virusCoronavirusIntensive care medicineInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)OutbreakDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Antiviral medications are being given empirically to some patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To support the development of a COVID-19 management guideline, we conducted a systematic review that addressed the benefits and harms of 7 antiviral treatments for COVID-19. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed and 3 Chinese databases (CNKI, WANFANG and SinoMed) through Apr. 19, medRxiv and Chinaxiv through Apr. 27, and Chongqing VIP through Apr. 30, 2020. We included studies of ribavirin, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, umifenovir (arbidol), favipravir, interferon and lopinavir/ritonavir. If direct evidence from COVID-19 studies was not available, we included indirect evidence from studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) for efficacy outcomes and other acute respiratory viral infections for safety outcomes. RESULTS: In patients with nonsevere COVID-19 illness, the death rate was extremely low, precluding an important effect on mortality. We found only very low-quality evidence with little or no suggestion of benefit for most treatments and outcomes in both nonsevere and severe COVID-19. An exception was treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir, for which we found low-quality evidence for a decrease in length of stay in the intensive care unit (risk difference 5 d shorter, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0 to 9 d) and hospital stay (risk difference 1 d shorter, 95% CI 0 to 2 d). For safety outcomes, evidence was of low or very low quality, with the exception of treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir for which moderate-quality evidence suggested likely increases in diarrhea, nausea and vomiting. INTERPRETATION: To date, persuasive evidence of important benefit in COVID-19 does not exist for any antiviral treatments, although for each treatment evidence has not excluded important benefit. Additional randomized controlled trials involving patients with COVID-19 will be needed before such treatments can be administered with confidence.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.168
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score0.839

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.168
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.311
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations88
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207