MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413029698 · doi:10.1186/s12985-025-02906-4

Methylprednisolone pulse therapy compared with intravenous dexamethasone for severe COVID-19 patients: a randomized clinical trial

2025· article· en· W4413029698 on OpenAlexaff
Kaveh Haratian, A Alaei, Golbarg Mehrpoor, Omid Kohandel Gargari

Bibliographic record

VenueVirology Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDexamethasoneMethylprednisoloneCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Randomized controlled trial2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Rescue therapyMedicineVirologyCorticosteroidBiologyInternal medicineOutbreak

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, leads to severe respiratory complications, often requiring intensive care. Corticosteroids have been widely used to manage inflammation in COVID-19 patients, with dexamethasone and methylprednisolone being among the most commonly administered options. However, their relative efficacy remains a subject of debate. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of dexamethasone and methylprednisolone in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted at Imam-Ali Hospital, Karaj, Iran, on 300 hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous dexamethasone (8 mg twice daily) or pulse methylprednisolone (500 mg daily for three days), in addition to standard COVID-19 management. The primary outcomes included mortality rate, ICU length of stay, and the need for mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes involved blood oxygen saturation (SpO₂) levels. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (version 26). RESULTS: The study included 150 patients in each treatment group. The mortality rate was 12.6% in the dexamethasone group and 15.3% in the methylprednisolone group, with no statistically significant difference (RR: 0.82, P = 0.50). The need for mechanical ventilation was observed in 16.6% of patients in the dexamethasone group and 21.3% in the methylprednisolone group, also without a significant difference (RR: 0.78, P = 0.30). However, ICU stay was significantly shorter in the dexamethasone group (9.5 days) compared to the methylprednisolone group (11.3 days) (P < 0.001). No significant differences were noted in SpO₂ levels between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Both dexamethasone and methylprednisolone demonstrated similar efficacy in outcomes such as mortality rate need for mechanical ventilation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, dexamethasone was associated with a significantly shorter ICU stay, suggesting a potential advantage in hospitalization duration. Further research is needed to refine corticosteroid use and explore additional immunomodulatory strategies to improve COVID-19 outcomes.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.162
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.846

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.162
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.386 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVirology JournalSame topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207