Bibliographic record
Abstract
This aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to obtain best estimates of the effect of outpatient HCQ intervention for COVID-19 with hospitalization prevention as the main outcome. Methods This study will be conducts with adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines and will be prospectively registered on PROSPERO. Searches A comprehensive search of the following databases was comprehensively searched on November 29, 2020 with the aid of a librarian at McMaster University: MEDLINE, EMBASE, medRxiv. Search strategy MEDLINE and EMBASE 1. Covid-19.ti,ab. 2. 2019-nCoV.ti,ab. 3. SARS-CoV-2.ti,ab. 4. 2019 novel coronavirus.ti,ab. 5. Wuhan coronavirus.ti,ab. 6. New coronavirus.ti,ab. 7. Coronavirus.ti,ab. 8. Hydroxychloroquine.ti,ab. 9. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 10. 8 and 9 11. limit 10 to randomized controlled trial MEDRxiv “Hydroxychloroquine AND (covid-19 OR 2019-nCoV OR SARS-CoV-2 OR 2019 novel coronavirus OR Coronavirus) AND randomized" Inclusion/exclusion criteria Inclusion criteria Any randomized controlled trials that examine HCQ intervention for COVID-19 outpatient prophylaxis, with hospitalization as an outcome Exclusion criteria Full text could not be found Conditions or domain being studied COVID-19 Participants/population Outpatient with a diagnosis of COVID-19. Interventions, exposures HCQ or chloroquine Comparators Placebo or control Main outcomes The primary outcome will be hospitalization rates. Additional outcomes Duration of hospitalization Deterioration on 7-point scale (if reported) Mortality Data synthesis Eligibility, screening (title/abstract and full-text), and extraction will be carried out by two independent reviewers and collected through Covidence software for systematic reviews (Veritas Health Innovation Ltd). Data extracted will include authors, country study was conducted in, journal, date of publication, location of study, RCT design, number of patients total and in each group, demographics, comorbidities, disease severity at baseline, patient status, intervention timing in relation to onset of symptoms and in relation to timing of diagnosis, dosage, number (%) of hospitalizations in each group, hazard ratio (95% CI), and 7 point scale if available, duration of hospitalization. Any disagreement across screening and data collection will be resolved through joint discussion between the two reviewers and a third reviewer. Studies excluded at the full-text stage will have a corresponding reason for exclusion. A PRISMA flow chart will be created in order to document the extraction process. Risk of Bias (Quality Assessment) Cochrane risk of bias Statistical analysis The meta-analysis will be conducted using Revman 5. All descriptive statistical analyses will be performed using GraphPad Prism (GraphPad Software Inc., San Diego, Cali.) or MS Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, Wash) and summarized in tables and graphs. Analysis of subgroups or subsets We will note open vs. blinded trials and potentially analyze and conduct a sub meta-analysis if data allows Contact details Allen Li Allen.li@uottawa.ca Organizational affiliation of the review McMaster University, Faculty of Health Sciences McMaster University, Michael D. Degroote School of Medicine University of Ottawa, Faculty of Medicine McMaster University, Department of Medicine Review team members and their organized affiliations Ms. Sarah Yang, McMaster University, Faculty of Health Sciences Ms. Sofia Ivanisevic, McMaster University, Faculty of Health Sciences Mr. Adrian Salopek, McMaster University, Faculty of Health Sciences Mr. Allen Li, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Medicine Mr. Ali Eshaghpour, McMaster University, Michael D. DeGroote School of Medicine, Dr. John Eikelboom, McMaster University, Department of Medicine Dr. Mark Crowther, McMaster University, Department of Medicine References 1. Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2020 (https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports/). 2. Rolain J-M, Colson P, Raoult D. Recycling of chloroquine and its hydroxyl analogue to face bacterial, fungal and viral infections in the 21st century. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2007;30:297-308. 3. Hernandez AV, Roman YM, Pasupuleti V, Barboza JJ, White CM. Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for treatment or prophylaxis of COVID-19: a living systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2020 May 27 (Epub ahead of print).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.052 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.366 | 0.080 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".