Back

Use of convalescent plasma in patients with coronavirus disease (Covid-19): Systematic review and meta-analysis

Tortosa, F. G.; Carrasco, G.; Haluska, P.; Ragusa, M. A.; Izcovich, A.

2021-02-19 infectious diseases
10.1101/2021.02.14.20246454 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjetivesTo assess the effects of convalescent plasma treatment in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Study designSystematic review and Meta-analysis Data sourcesA systematic search was carried out on the L {middle dot} OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19 until October 31, 2020 Study selectionRandomized clinical trials in which people with probable or confirmed COVID-19 were randomized to drug treatment, standard care, or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. MethodsThe PRISMA guidelines were followed for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0, and the certainty of the evidence using the recommendation assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, the interventions were classified into groups, from most to least beneficial or harmful. ResultsWe identified 10 RCTs (randomized controlled trials) involving 11854 patients in which convalescent plasma was compared with standard of care or other treatments. The results of five RCTs that evaluated the use of convalescent plasma in patients with COVID-19 did not show significant differences in the effect on mortality and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. ConclusionsCurrent evidence is insufficient to recommend the use of convalescent plasma in the treatment of moderate or severe COVID-19. Contribution of the authors O_TBL View this table: org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1485b91org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@173b855org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@4ad531org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@f2af32org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@cc3bb4_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_TBL C_TBL

Matching journals

The top 9 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.