-
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Apr 2022The objective of this systematic review is to summarize the effects of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of patients with COVID-19 and to assess... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this systematic review is to summarize the effects of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of patients with COVID-19 and to assess inconsistencies in results from individual studies with focus on risk of bias due to methodological limitations.
METHODS
We searched the L.OVE platform through July 6, 2021 and included randomized trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard or other active treatments. We conducted random-effects pairwise meta-analysis, assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach and performed sensitivity analysis excluding trials with risk of bias.
RESULTS
We included 29 RCTs which enrolled 5592 cases. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was very low to low suggesting that ivermectin may result in important benefits. However, after excluding trials classified as "high risk" or "some concerns" in the risk of bias assessment, most estimates of effect changed substantially: Compared to standard of care, low certainty evidence suggests that ivermectin may not reduce mortality (RD 7 fewer per 1000) nor mechanical ventilation (RD 6 more per 1000), and moderate certainty evidence shows that it probably does not increase symptom resolution or improvement (RD 14 more per 1000) nor viral clearance (RD 12 fewer per 1000).
CONCLUSION
Ivermectin may not improve clinically important outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and its effects as a prophylactic intervention in exposed individuals are uncertain. Previous reports concluding important benefits associated with ivermectin are based on potentially biased results reported by studies with substantial methodological limitations. Further research is needed.
Topics: Bias; Humans; Ivermectin; Respiration, Artificial; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34933115
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.12.018 -
Journal of Cardiovascular... Mar 2022Ethanol ablation (EA) is an alternative option for subjects with ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) refractory to conventional medical and ablative treatment. However, data... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Ethanol ablation (EA) is an alternative option for subjects with ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) refractory to conventional medical and ablative treatment. However, data on the efficacy and safety of EA remain sparse.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted. The primary outcomes were 1) freedom from the targeted VA and 2) freedom from any VAs post-EA. Additional safety outcomes were also analyzed.
RESULTS
Ten studies were selected accounting for a population of 174 patients (62.3 ± 12.5 years, 94% male) undergoing 185 procedures. The overall acute success rate of EA was 72.4% (confidence interval [CI ]: 65.6-78.4). After a mean follow-up of 11.3 ± 5.5 months, the incidence of relapse of the targeted VA was 24.4% (CI : 17.1-32.8), while any VAs post-EA occurred in 41.3% (CI : 33.7-49.1). The overall incidence of procedural complications was 14.1% (CI : 9.8-19.8), with pericardial complications and complete atrioventricular block being the most frequent. An anterograde transarterial approach was associated with a higher rate of VA recurrences and complications compared to a retrograde transvenous route; however, differences in the baseline population characteristics and in the targeted ventricular areas should be accounted.
CONCLUSION
EA is a valuable therapeutic option for VAs refractory to conventional treatment and can result in 1-year freedom from VA recurrence in 60%-75% of the patients. However, anatomical or technical challenges preclude acute success in almost 30% of the candidates and the rate of complication is not insignificant, highlighting the importance of well-informed patient selection. The certainty of the evidence is low, and further research is necessary.
Topics: Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Catheter Ablation; Ethanol; Female; Heart Ventricles; Humans; Male; Retrospective Studies; Tachycardia, Ventricular; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34921464
DOI: 10.1111/jce.15336 -
Operative Dentistry Nov 2021The following PICO (Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes) question was proposed: "Are retention rates of composite resin restorations in noncarious... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The following PICO (Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes) question was proposed: "Are retention rates of composite resin restorations in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) when using adhesives considered "gold standard" (OptiBond FL and Clearfil SE Bond) higher than those obtained with other adhesives brands"?
METHODS
A search was performed in February 2019 (updated in November 2019) in the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, BBO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Grey Literature, and IADR abstracts (1990-2018); unpublished and ongoing trial registries, dissertations, and theses were also searched. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in NCCLs that compared either OptiBond FL or Clearfil SE Bond adhesive with other commercially available adhesives were included. The risk of bias (RoB) was applied by using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. A meta-analysis was performed for retention rates at different follow-up times using a random effects model for both the adhesives. Heterogeneity was assessed with the Cochran Q test and I2 statistics. Grading of Recommendations: Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessed the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
After removal of duplicates and noneligible articles, 25 studies remained for qualitative synthesis, as one study was common to the two adhesives, of which 9 studies were used for the OptiBond FL meta-analysis and 14 for the Clearfil SE Bond meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed for retention rates in follow-up periods of 12-24 months (p=0.97), 36-48 months (p=0.72), or 108-156 months (p=0.73) for OptiBond FL; and for 12-24 months (p=0.10) and 36-48 months (p=0.17) for Clearfil SE Bond. A significant difference was only found for OptiBond FL at 60-96 months (p=0.02), but only three studies were included in this meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence from available RCTs conducted in NCCLs that compared OptiBond FL or Clearfil SE Bond does not support the widespread concept that these adhesives are better than any other competitive brands available in the dental market.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Bonding; Dental Cements; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dentin-Bonding Agents; Humans; Resin Cements
PubMed: 34919728
DOI: 10.2341/20-059-LIT -
The Journal of Small Animal Practice May 2022To determine the efficacy and adverse events of the administration of angiotensin--converting enzyme inhibitors for the management of preclinical myxomatous mitral valve... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and adverse events of the administration of angiotensin--converting enzyme inhibitors for the management of preclinical myxomatous mitral valve disease in dogs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A compre- hensive search using Pubmed/MEDLINE, LILACS and CAB abstracts databases was performed. Ran- domised clinical trials that assessed efficacy and adverse events of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for the management of preclinical myxomatous mitral valve disease in dogs were included. Certainty of evidence was rated using GRADE methods.
RESULTS
Four randomised clinical trials were included. While safe, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors administration to dogs with myxomatous mitral valve disease and cardiomegaly results in little to no difference in the risk of development congestive heart failure (high certainty of evidence; relative risk: 1.03; 95% confidence interval: 0.87 to 1.23) and may result in little to no difference in cardiovascular-related (low certainty of evidence; relative risk: 1.01; 95% confidence interval: 0.54 to 1.89) and all-cause mortality (low certainty of evidence; relative risk: 0.93; 95% confidence interval: 0.63 to 1.36). Administration of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors to dogs with myxomatous mitral valve disease without cardiomegaly may result in a reduced risk of congestive heart failure development. However, the range in which the actual effect for this outcome may be, the "margin of error," indicates it might also increase the risk of congestive heart failure development (low certainty of evidence; relative risk: 0.86; 95% confidence interval: 0.54 to 1.35).
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Administration of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors to dogs with -preclinical myxoma- tous mitral valve disease and cardiomegaly results in little to no difference in the risk of the develop- ment of congestive heart failure and may result in little to no difference in -cardiovascular-related and all-cause mortality. The certainty of evidence of the efficacy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibi- tors administration to dogs without cardiomegaly was low.
Topics: Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Angiotensins; Animals; Cardiomegaly; Dog Diseases; Dogs; Heart Failure; Mitral Valve
PubMed: 34905219
DOI: 10.1111/jsap.13461 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally. Recently, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors for people with cardiovascular disease: a network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally. Recently, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) were approved for treating people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Although metformin remains the first-line pharmacotherapy for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus, a body of evidence has recently emerged indicating that DPP4i, GLP-1RA and SGLT2i may exert positive effects on patients with known CVD.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the available evidence on the benefits and harms of DPP4i, GLP-1RA, and SGLT2i in people with established CVD, using network meta-analysis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on 16 July 2020. We also searched clinical trials registers on 22 August 2020. We did not restrict by language or publication status.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating DPP4i, GLP-1RA, or SGLT2i that included participants with established CVD. Outcome measures of interest were CVD mortality, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal and non-fatal stroke, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation for heart failure (HF), and safety outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently screened the results of searches to identify eligible studies and extracted study data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We conducted standard pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses by pooling studies that we assessed to be of substantial homogeneity; subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also pursued to explore how study characteristics and potential effect modifiers could affect the robustness of our review findings. We analysed study data using the odds ratios (ORs) and log odds ratios (LORs) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and credible intervals (Crls), where appropriate. We also performed narrative synthesis for included studies that were of substantial heterogeneity and that did not report quantitative data in a usable format, in order to discuss their individual findings and relevance to our review scope.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 31 studies (287 records), of which we pooled data from 20 studies (129,465 participants) for our meta-analysis. The majority of the included studies were at low risk of bias, using Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. Among the 20 pooled studies, six investigated DPP4i, seven studied GLP-1RA, and the remaining seven trials evaluated SGLT2i. All outcome data described below were reported at the longest follow-up duration. 1. DPP4i versus placebo Our review suggests that DPP4i do not reduce any risk of efficacy outcomes: CVD mortality (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; high-certainty evidence), myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; high-certainty evidence), stroke (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14; high-certainty evidence), and all-cause mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.11; high-certainty evidence). DPP4i probably do not reduce hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.23; moderate-certainty evidence). DPP4i may not increase the likelihood of worsening renal function (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; low-certainty evidence) and probably do not increase the risk of bone fracture (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; moderate-certainty evidence) or hypoglycaemia (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.29; moderate-certainty evidence). They are likely to increase the risk of pancreatitis (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.37; moderate-certainty evidence). 2. GLP-1RA versus placebo Our findings indicate that GLP-1RA reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), and stroke (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA probably do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate-certainty evidence), and hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.06; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA may reduce the risk of worsening renal function (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84; low-certainty evidence), but may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of GLP-1RA on hypoglycaemia and bone fractures. 3. SGLT2i versus placebo This review shows that SGLT2i probably reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95; moderate-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96; moderate-certainty evidence), and reduce the risk of HF hospitalisation (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.71; high-certainty evidence); they do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.12; high-certainty evidence) and probably do not reduce the risk of stroke (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.36; moderate-certainty evidence). In terms of treatment safety, SGLT2i probably reduce the incidence of worsening renal function (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably have no effect on hypoglycaemia (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.07; moderate-certainty evidence) or bone fracture (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.18; high-certainty evidence), and may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.86; low-certainty evidence). 4. Network meta-analysis Because we failed to identify direct comparisons between each class of the agents, findings from our network meta-analysis provided limited novel insights. Almost all findings from our network meta-analysis agree with those from the standard meta-analysis. GLP-1RA may not reduce the risk of stroke compared with placebo (OR 0.87, 95% CrI 0.75 to 1.0; moderate-certainty evidence), which showed similar odds estimates and wider 95% Crl compared with standard pairwise meta-analysis. Indirect estimates also supported comparison across all three classes. SGLT2i was ranked the best for CVD and all-cause mortality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Findings from both standard and network meta-analyses of moderate- to high-certainty evidence suggest that GLP-1RA and SGLT2i are likely to reduce the risk of CVD mortality and all-cause mortality in people with established CVD; high-certainty evidence demonstrates that treatment with SGLT2i reduce the risk of hospitalisation for HF, while moderate-certainty evidence likely supports the use of GLP-1RA to reduce fatal and non-fatal stroke. Future studies conducted in the non-diabetic CVD population will reveal the mechanisms behind how these agents improve clinical outcomes irrespective of their glucose-lowering effects.
Topics: Cardiovascular Diseases; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Dipeptidyl-Peptidases and Tripeptidyl-Peptidases; Glucagon-Like Peptide 1; Glucose; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Sodium; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors; Symporters
PubMed: 34693515
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013650.pub2 -
Europace : European Pacing,... Jan 2022To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of cryoballoon ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) performed using a single... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of cryoballoon ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) performed using a single freeze strategy in comparison to an empiric double ('bonus') freeze strategy. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from inception to 12 July 2020, for prospective and retrospective studies of patients undergoing cryoballoon for paroxysmal or persistent AF comparing a single vs. bonus freeze strategy. The main outcome was atrial arrhythmia-free survival and eligible studies required at least 12 months of follow-up; the primary safety outcome was a composite of all complications. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Thirteen studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 10 observational studies) comprising 3163 patients were eligible for inclusion (64% males, 71.5% paroxysmal AF, mean CHA2DS2-VASc score 1.3 ± 0.9). There was no significant difference in pooled effectiveness between single freeze strategy compared to double freeze strategy [relative risk (RR) 1.03; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98-1.07; I2 = 0%]. Single freeze procedures were associated with a significantly lower adverse event rate (RR 0.72; 95% CI: 0.53-0.98; I2 = 0%) and shorter average procedure time (90 ± 27 min vs. 121 ± 36 min, P < 0.001). A trend for lower risk of persistent phrenic nerve palsy was observed (RR 0.61; 95% CI: 0.37-1.01; I2 = 0%). The quality of included studies was moderate/good, with no evidence of significant publication bias. Single freeze strategy for cryoballoon of AF is as effective as an empiric double ('bonus') freeze strategy while appearing safer and probably quicker (PROSPERO registration number CRD42020158696).
Topics: Atrial Fibrillation; Catheter Ablation; Cryosurgery; Female; Humans; Male; Prospective Studies; Pulmonary Veins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34297839
DOI: 10.1093/europace/euab133 -
Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2021(1) Background: Stretching is known to improve range of motion (ROM), and evidence has suggested that strength training (ST) is effective too. However, it is unclear... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: Stretching is known to improve range of motion (ROM), and evidence has suggested that strength training (ST) is effective too. However, it is unclear whether its efficacy is comparable to stretching. The goal was to systematically review and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of ST and stretching on ROM (INPLASY 10.37766/inplasy2020.9.0098). (2) Methods: Cochrane Library, EBSCO, PubMed, Scielo, Scopus, and Web of Science were consulted in October 2020 and updated in March 2021, followed by search within reference lists and expert suggestions (no constraints on language or year). Eligibility criteria: (P) Humans of any condition; (I) ST interventions; (C) stretching (O) ROM; (S) supervised RCTs. (3) Results: Eleven articles ( = 452 participants) were included. Pooled data showed no differences between ST and stretching on ROM (ES = -0.22; 95% CI = -0.55 to 0.12; = 0.206). Sub-group analyses based on risk of bias, active vs. passive ROM, and movement-per-joint analyses showed no between-protocol differences in ROM gains. (4) Conclusions: ST and stretching were not different in their effects on ROM, but the studies were highly heterogeneous in terms of design, protocols and populations, and so further research is warranted. However, the qualitative effects of all the studies were quite homogeneous.
PubMed: 33917036
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare9040427 -
International Journal of Environmental... Mar 2021In recent years, cyberbullying has been recognized as a severe public health problem and is drawing growing interest. The objective of this study was to perform a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
In recent years, cyberbullying has been recognized as a severe public health problem and is drawing growing interest. The objective of this study was to perform a bibliometric analysis of the scientific production on adolescent cyberbullying in the last decade. A search for publications was made in the Web of Science database, where the 1530 documents identified were analyzed with BibExcel software and visualized using the Pajek and VOSviewer tools. The predominant language in the publications was English, followed by Spanish. The publication rate was shown to have increased in recent years. The journal "" had the highest production. The repercussion of new technologies on this phenomenon has been felt, and research groups have enlarged their production in response to the problem. A systematic review and/or meta-analysis examining the contents of the studies identified and the variables related to this problem is therefore necessary. This could identify a point of reference for research in this field and a basis for future reviews of its development and progress over time.
Topics: Adolescent; Bibliometrics; Cyberbullying; Databases, Factual; Forecasting; Humans
PubMed: 33804128
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18063016 -
Cardiovascular Diabetology Jan 2021Metformin is a first-line drug in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treatment, yet whether metformin may increase all-cause or cardiovascular mortality of T2DM patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Metformin is a first-line drug in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treatment, yet whether metformin may increase all-cause or cardiovascular mortality of T2DM patients remains inconclusive.
METHODS
We searched PubMed and Embase for data extracted from inception to July 14, 2020, with a registration in PROSPERO (CRD42020177283). This study included randomized controlled trials (RCT) assessing the cardiovascular effects of metformin for T2DM. This study is followed by PRISMA and Cochrane guideline. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI was pooled across trials by a random-effects model. Primary outcomes include all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality.
RESULTS
We identified 29 studies that randomly assigned patients with 371 all-cause and 227 cardiovascular death events. Compared with untreated T2DM patients, metformin-treated patients was not associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 0.98; 95%CI: 0.69-1.38; P = 0.90), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.60, 2.15; P = 0.70), macrovascular events (RR: 0.87; 95%CI: 0.70-1.07; P = 0.19), heart failure (RR: 1.02; 95% CI:0.61-1.71; P = 0.95), and microvascular events (RR: 0.78; 95% CI:0.54-1.13; P = 0.19). Combination of metformin with another hypoglycemic drug was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.02, 2.16) and cardiovascular mortality (RR: 2.21; 95% CI: 1.22, 4.00) compared with hypoglycemic drug regimens with no metformin.
CONCLUSION
The combination of metformin treatment may impose higher risk in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. This finding, at least in part, shows no evidence for benefits of metformin in combination in terms of all-cause/cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular events for T2DM. However, the conclusion shall be explained cautiously considering the limitations from UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS).
Topics: Cardiovascular Diseases; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Drug Therapy, Combination; Heart Disease Risk Factors; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Metformin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33516224
DOI: 10.1186/s12933-020-01202-5 -
Medwave Dec 2020This living, systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated summary of the available evidence on the role of cell-based therapies in the...
OBJECTIVE
This living, systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated summary of the available evidence on the role of cell-based therapies in the treatment of patients with COVID-19.
DATA SOURCES
We conducted searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature, and in a centralized repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from the Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. All the searches covered the period until 23 April 2020 (one day before submission).
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES AND METHODS
We adapted an already published standard protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We searched for randomized trials evaluating the effectiveness and safety of cell-based therapies versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Anticipating the lack of randomized trials directly addressing this question, we also searched for trials evaluating other coronavirus infections, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and nonrandomized studies in COVID-19. Two reviewers independently screened each study for eligibility. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit this review to a peer-reviewed journal every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates.
RESULTS
We screened 1 043 records, but no study was considered eligible. We identified 61 ongoing studies, including 39 randomized trials evaluating different types of cell-based therapies in COVID-19.
CONCLUSIONS
We did not find any studies that met our inclusion criteria, and hence there is no evidence to support or refute the use of cell-based therapies for treating patients with COVID-19. A substantial number of ongoing studies should provide valuable evidence to inform researchers and decision-makers in the near future.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020179711.
Topics: COVID-19; Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy; Humans
PubMed: 33382060
DOI: 10.5867/medwave.2020.11.8078