MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393132354 · doi:10.1016/j.cdnut.2024.102145

Role of Antioxidant Therapy in the Treatment and Prognosis of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2024· review· en· W4393132354 on OpenAlex
Radha Sharma, Atushi Patel, Tanvi Ojha, Lesley A. Pablo, Tina Vosoughi, Carolyn Ziegler, Krishihan Sivapragasam, Andrew D. Pinto, David J.A. Jenkins, Banafshe Hosseini

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Developments in Nutrition · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicVitamin C and Antioxidants Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Meta-analysisRandomized controlled trialOxidative stressAntioxidantMedicine2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Sars virusIntensive care medicineBioinformaticsInternal medicineVirologyBiologyDiseaseBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background A significant aspect of the SARS-CoV-2 pathology involves oxidative stress, characterized by an imbalance between the production of harmful free radicals and the body's antioxidant defenses. With the ongoing evolution of SARS-CoV-2, the investigation into non–virus-specific therapeutic options, such as antioxidant therapy, has gained importance. Objectives This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize data from randomized control trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of antioxidant therapy in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods We searched the peer-reviewed indexed literature on MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Scopus, from inception to July 2023. Results The search identified 3306 articles from which 25 were included for quantitative synthesis, with 5 studies eligible for meta-analysis. Antioxidant therapies included zinc, vitamin A, vitamin C, and combination treatments. Zinc interventions showed mixed results regarding intensive care unit admissions and hospital stays. Vitamin A studies indicated improvements in inflammatory markers. Vitamin C studies displayed inconsistent effects on clinical improvement and hospitalization. Combination treatments suggested benefits in symptom clearance and cytokine storm reduction. Meta-analysis of vitamin C studies found no significant difference in C-reactive protein concentrations (−0.50; 95% CI: −3.63, 2.63; I 2 = 0%), intensive care unit stay duration (pooled mean difference: 1.44; 95% CI: 0.07, 2.81; I 2 = 0%), or mortality (pooled odds ratio: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.28, 1.09; I 2 = 0%), with a slight trend favoring reduced hospitalization duration (pooled mean difference: −2.37; 95% CI: −2.99, −1.76; I 2 = 49%). Of the 25 studies, 8 were high quality with low bias, 6 had some concerns, and 11 were low quality with high bias. Conclusions The review presents mixed efficacy of antioxidant therapies for SARS-CoV-2, with some studies indicating potential benefits. Further well-designed large-scale RCTs are warranted to determine the definitive role of antioxidants in SARS-CoV-2 treatment. This systematic review was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42023430805.

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.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0290.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.262 · 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