Vitamin C for the treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol
Baladia, E.; Pizarro, A. B.; Rada, G.
Show abstract
ObjectiveThis living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of vitamin C in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Data sourcesWe will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralised repository in L{middle dot}OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L{middle dot}OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L{middle dot}OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will coverthe period until the day before submission to a journal. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We will include randomised trials evaluating the effect of vitamin C, as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs, versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomised trials evaluating vitamin C in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomised studies in COVID-19 will be searched in case no direct evidence from randomised trials is found, or if the direct evidence provides low- or very low-certainty for critical outcomes. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the GRADE system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates. Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media. PROSPERO RegistrationSubmitted to PROSPERO (awaiting ID allocation) COVID-19 L OVE Working Group
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, and lopinavir/ritonavir when used for COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials 93%
- The association between influenza vaccination, all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality: a protocol for a living systematic review and prospective meta-analysis 93%
- The incubation period of COVID-19: A rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of observational research 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infection triggers for acute myocardial infarction and stroke: systematic review protocol 93%
- Hydroxychloroquine/Chloroquine for the Treatment of Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis 91%
- Protocol for the systematic review of the Pneumocystis jirovecii -associated pneumonia in non-HIV immunocompromised patients 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Identifying Plausible Ranges For Differential Vaccine Efficacy Across High- And Low-Income Settings: A Systematic Review, Descriptive Meta-Analysis, And Illustrative Evidence Analysis 88%
- Transparency and open science reporting guidelines in sleep research and chronobiology journals 88%
- A Rapid Review and Meta-Analysis of the Asymptomatic Proportion of PCR-Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Infections in Community Settings 87%
Similar papers in this journal
- State of the evidence: a survey of global disparities in clinical trials 90%
- Characterising long term Covid-19: a living systematic review 90%
- WICID framework Version 1.0: Criteria and considerations to guide evidence-informed decision-making on non-pharmacological interventions targeting COVID-19 90%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.