MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mortality Rates Among Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 Treated With Convalescent Plasma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2023· review· en· W4387443121 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathon W. Senefeld, Ellen K. Gorman, Patrick W. Johnson, M. Erin Moir, Stephen A. Klassen, Rickey E. Carter, Nigel Paneth, David Sullivan, Olaf H. Morkeberg, R. Scott Wright, DeLisa Fairweather, Katelyn A. Bruno, Shmuel Shoham, Evan M. Bloch, Daniele Focosi, Jeffrey P. Henderson, Justin E. Juskewitch, Liise-anne Pirofski, Brenda J. Grossman, Aaron A.R. Tobian, Massimo Franchini, Ravindra Ganesh, Ryan T. Hurt, Neil E. Kay, Sameer A. Parikh, Sarah E. Baker, Zachary A. Buchholtz, Matthew Buras, Andrew J. Clayburn, Joshua J. Dennis, Juan C. Diaz Soto, Vitaly Herasevich, Allan M. Klompas, Katie L. Kunze, Kathryn F. Larson, John R. Mills, Riley J. Regimbal, Juan G. Ripoll, Matthew A. Sexton, John R.A. Shepherd, James R. Stubbs, Elitza S. Theel, Camille M. van Buskirk, Noud van Helmond, Matthew N.P. Vogt, Emily R. Whelan, Chad C. Wiggins, Jeffrey L. Winters, Arturo Casadevall, Michael J. Joyner

Bibliographic record

VenueMayo Clinic Proceedings Innovations Quality & Outcomes · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialCohortCohort studyPlaceboOdds ratioClinical trialPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To examine the association of COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion with mortality and the differences between subgroups in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Patients and Methods: On October 26, 2022, a systematic search was performed for clinical studies of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in the literature from January 1, 2020, to October 26, 2022. Randomized clinical trials and matched cohort studies investigating COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion compared with standard of care treatment or placebo among hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 were included. The electronic search yielded 3841 unique records, of which 744 were considered for full-text screening. The selection process was performed independently by a panel of 5 reviewers. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data were extracted by 5 independent reviewers in duplicate and pooled using an inverse-variance random effects model. The prespecified end point was all-cause mortality during hospitalization. Results: Thirty-nine randomized clinical trials enrolling 21,529 participants and 70 matched cohort studies enrolling 50,160 participants were included in the systematic review. Separate meta-analyses reported that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with the control cohort for both randomized clinical trials (odds ratio [OR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-1.00) and matched cohort studies (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66-0.88). The meta-analysis of subgroups revealed 2 important findings. First, treatment with convalescent plasma containing high antibody levels was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with convalescent plasma containing low antibody levels (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.99). Second, earlier treatment with COVID-19 convalescent plasma was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with the later treatment cohort (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.82). Conclusion: During COVID-19 convalescent plasma use was associated with a 13% reduced risk of mortality, implying a mortality benefit for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, particularly those treated with convalescent plasma containing high antibody levels treated earlier in the disease course.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.033
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.306
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations36
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMayo Clinic Proceedings Innovations Quality & OutcomesSame topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchFrench-language works237,207