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.
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.
Similar papers in this journal
- Laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infection triggers for acute myocardial infarction and stroke: systematic review protocol 96%
- Can we predict the severe course of COVID-19 – a systematic review and meta-analysis of indicators of clinical outcome? 95%
- Colchicine use in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 94%
- Safety and feasibility of lung biopsy in diagnosis of acute respiratory distress syndrome: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis 94%
- The association between influenza vaccination, all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality: a protocol for a living systematic review and prospective meta-analysis 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- The efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine in COVID19 patients : a multicenter national retrospective cohort 92%
- Factors Associated with Good Patient Outcomes Following Convalescent Plasma in COVID-19: A Prospective Phase II Clinical Trial 90%
- Oral clarithromycin in COVID-19 of moderate severity: the ACHIEVE open-label trial using concurrent matched comparators 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Adverse events of iron and/or erythropoiesis-stimulating agent therapy in preoperatively anaemic elective surgery patients: a systematic review 93%
- Repurposing Existing Medications for Coronavirus Disease 2019: Protocol for a Rapid and Living Systematic Review 92%
- Evidence-Based, Cost-Effective Interventions To Suppress The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Efficacy of remdesivir-containing therapy in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a prospective clinical experience 93%
- Administration of tocilizumab to patients with high concentrations of IL-6 in the course of COVID-19 is associated with a better prognosis 93%
- Five-year Efficacy and Safety of TiNO-Coated Stents Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Acute Coronary Syndrome. A meta-analysis. 93%
"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.