Back

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Current Drugs against COVID-19: a Systematic Review and Net-work Meta Analysis

Li, Y.; He, W.

2020-11-18 infectious diseases
10.1101/2020.11.16.20232884 medRxiv
Show abstract

The rapid spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has greatly disrupted the livelihood of many people around the world. To date, more than 35.16 million COVID-19 cases with 1.037million total deaths have been reported worldwide. Compared with China, where the disease was first reported, cases of COVID-19, the number of confirmed cases for the disease in the rest of the world have been incredibly high. Even though several dugs have been suggested to be used against the disease, the said interventions should be backed by empirical clinical evidence. Therefore, this paper provides a systematic review and a meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of different COVID-19 drugs. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSCurrently, Covid-19 is one of the most urgent and significant health challenge, globally. However, so far there is no specific and effective treatment strategy against the disease. Nonetheless, there are numerous debates over the effectiveness and potential adverse effects of different COVID-19 antivirals. In general, there is invaluable need to continually report on new advances and successes against COVID-19, apparently to aid in managing the pandemic. Added value of this studyThis study provides a comprehensive, evidence-based guide on the management of multiple COVID-19 symptoms. In particular, we provide a review of 14 drugs, placebos and standard treatments against COVID 19. Meanwhile, we also performed a meta-analysis based on four clinical outcome indicators, to measure and compare the efficacy and safety of current interventions. Implications of all the available evidenceFindings of this research will guide clinical decision in COVID-19 patients. It will also provide a basis for predicting clinical outcomes such as efficacy, mortality and safety of interventions against the disease.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.