scholarly journals A Review of Marital Intimacy-Enhancing Interventions among Married Individuals

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. 74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maryam Kardan-Souraki ◽  
Zeinab Hamzehgardeshi ◽  
Ismail Asadpour ◽  
Reza Ali Mohammadpour ◽  
Soghra Khani
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Main Concern ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Marital Intimacy ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
The Impact

<p><strong>BACKGROUND:</strong> Lack of intimacy is currently the main concern rather than main concern of the experts in psychology and counseling. It is considered as one of the most important causes for divorce and as such to improve marital intimacy a great number of interventions have been proposed in the literature. Intimacy training and counseling make the couples take effective and successful steps to increase marital intimacy. No study has reviewed the interventions promoting marital intimacy after marriage. Thus, this review study aimed to classify the articles investigating the impact of interventional programs on marital intimacy after marriage.</p><p><strong>SEARCH METHODS:</strong> In April 2015, we performed a general search in Google Scholar search engines, and then we did an advanced search the databases of Science Direct, ProQuest, SID, Magiran, Irandoc, Pubmed, Scopus, <a href="http://www.cochranelibrary.com/">Cochrane Library</a>, and Psych info; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). Also, lists of the references of the relevant articles were reviewed for additional citations. Using Medical Subject Headings (MESH) keywords: Intervention (Clinical Trials, Non-Randomized Controlled Trials, Randomized Controlled Trials, Education), intimacy, marital (Marriage) and selected related articles to the study objective were from 1995 to April 2015. Clinical trials that evaluated one or more behavioral interventions to improve marital intimacy were reviewed in the study.</p><p><strong>MAIN RESULTS:</strong> 39 trials met the inclusion criteria. Eleven interventions had follow-up, and 28 interventions lacked follow-up. The quality evidence for 22 interventions was low, for 15 interventions moderate, and for one intervention was considered high. Findings from studies were categorized in 11 categories as the intimacy promoting interventions in dimensions of emotional, psychological, physical, sexual, temporal, communicational, social and recreational, aesthetic, spiritual, intellectual intimacy, and total intimacy.</p><p><strong>AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS:</strong> Improving and promoting communication, problem solving, self-disclosure and empathic response skills and sexual education and counseling in the form of cognitive-behavioral techniques and based on religious and cultural context of each society, an effective step can be taken to enhance marital intimacy and strengthen family bonds and stability. Health care providers should consider which interventions are appropriate to the couple characteristics and their relationships.</p>

scholarly journals The Long-Lasting Effects of “Placebo Injections” in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Meta-Analysis

Cartilage ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 194760352090659 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davide Previtali ◽  
Giulia Merli ◽  
Giorgio Di Laura Frattura ◽  
Christian Candrian ◽  
Stefano Zaffagnini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Placebo Effect ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
The Impact

Objectives To quantify the placebo effect of intraarticular injections for knee osteoarthritis in terms of pain, function, and objective outcomes. Factors influencing placebo effect were investigated. Design Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials; Level of evidence, 2. PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and grey literature databases were searched on January 8, 2020, using the string: (knee) AND (osteoarthritis OR OA) AND (injections OR intra-articular) AND (saline OR placebo). The following inclusion criteria were used: double-blind, randomized controlled trials on knee osteoarthritis, including a placebo arm on saline injections. The primary outcome was pain variation. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2.0 tool, and quality of evidence was graded following the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) guidelines. Results Out of 2,363 records, 50 articles on 4,076 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed significant improvements up to the 6-month follow-up: Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)-pain −13.4 mean difference (MD) (95% confidence interval [CI]: −21.7/−5.1; P < 0.001), Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)-pain −3.3 MD (95% CI: −3.9/−2.7; P < 0.001). Other significant improvements were WOMAC-stiffness −1.1 MD (95% CI: −1.6/−0.6; P < 0.001), WOMAC-function −10.1 MD (95% CI: −12.2/−8.0; P < 0.001), and Evaluator Global Assessment −21.4 MD (95% CI: −29.2/−13.6; P < 0.001). The responder rate was 52% (95% CI: 40% to 63%). Improvements were greater than the “minimal clinically important difference” for all outcomes (except 6-month VAS-pain). The level of evidence was moderate for almost all outcomes. Conclusions The placebo effect of knee injections is significant, with functional improvements lasting even longer than those reported for pain perception. The high, long-lasting, and heterogeneous effects on the scales commonly used in clinical trials further highlight that the impact of placebo should not be overlooked in the research on and management of knee osteoarthritis.

Clinical Trials

Anthropology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salla Sariola
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Production Processes

Clinical trials are tests of safety and efficacy for drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics. Methods by with which trials are conducted include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and equivalence studies. Randomized controlled trials compare an experimental compound with a placebo, or a previously existing drug, seeking to establish safety and/or efficacy. RCTs can also be conducted on social interventions or policies. According to current standards, trials are conducted in phases, cumulatively including more participants. So called phase I trials are “first-in-man” studies, prior to which animal studies have been conducted. Phases II and III include a higher number of study participants, often in thousands across the world. After phase III, marketing permission is sought—phases IV and V are used to promote the products and gather further evidence of side effects. Trials are also conducted to compare the equivalence of existing and remanufactured products, extend patents of the patent holder, and gain a hold of a new market, resulting in what is at times called “me-too”-drugs. Trials are conducted by public/global health researchers, pharmaceutical companies, and public-private partnerships all of which entail a complex web of actors. Anthropological literature exploring clinical trials has increased since the 2000s and the field reflects a global increase of overseas research by various biomedical actors. Clinical trials are not a new phenomenon, but their recent trajectory and shifting geographical locations has rendered them an object of inquiry. The increase is a consequence of multiple processes including global regulatory changes, emergence of new bilateral actors, and the overall development in countries like India and China that have increased their capacity for knowledge production. Within anthropology, the interest has coincided with and compounded research on globalization and global assemblages that has focused on webs and networks of technologies, ethics, and financial actors. Knowledge production processes have also illuminated the “ontological turn” in anthropology that has explored practices that give rise to objects, materiality, and biology. Following practices that construct pharmaceuticals illuminates the ways in which life itself, bodies, and biologies are socially constructed. Such approach, while not always explicitly, takes inspiration from Bruno Latour’s Actor-Network Theory and science and technology studies. Knowledge production processes are not devoid of power, and a major concern in the literature is the potential for exploitation of research participants, researchers, and local research cultures. In sites where global health research is conducted, health systems are often poor, and strongly divided between public and private health-care providers. Anthropology in/of clinical trials has engendered social scientists’ roles in working also in collaboration with medical researchers and thinking about the social relationships and ethics of international research, justice and universality of values, how to promote the interests and concerns of communities, and how indeed research bioethical regulation itself is a product of neoliberalization of health research.

The Impact of Immersive and Non-Immersive Virtual Reality Trends in Sensorimotor Recovery of Post-Stroke Patients-A Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 555-564
Author(s):  
Jaza Rizvi ◽  
◽  
Abid Khan ◽  
Sumaira Imran Farooqui ◽  
Bashir Ahmed Soomro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Virtual Reality ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Stroke Patients ◽  
Post Stroke ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Sensorimotor Recovery ◽  
The Impact

Virtual Reality (VR) is an approach in stroke rehabilitation with ever-improving technological advancement for targeted motor rehabilitation by providing a user interface in a simulated environment with proprioceptive and visual feedback. This meta-analysis intended to evaluate the impact of immersive and non-immersive VR-based interventions compared to conventional rehabilitation in sensorimotor recovery following stroke. Randomized Controlled Trials based on the impact of VR, either immersive or non-immersive type in comparison to conventional rehabilitation on post-stroke patients (>18 years) sensorimotor recovery were searched on six databases including Google Scholar, PEDro, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science from August to November 2020. A total of 17 randomized controlled trials on VR based intervention showed significant improvement in sensorimotor recovery following a stroke in overall FMA outcomes in comparison to the control group with pool effects in terms of SMD in a random effect model showed an impact of 0.498 at 95% CI (p<0.001) depicts a moderate effect size. An immersive and non-immersive emerging VR trend appears to be a promising therapeutic tool in sensorimotor recovery following stroke.

scholarly journals Are Surgical Patients Satisfied With Remote Consultations? A Comparison of Remote Versus Conventional Outpatient Clinic Follow-Up for Surgical Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 237437352110359
Author(s):  
Emily V Oates ◽  
Grace H C Lim ◽  
Edward J Nevins ◽  
Venkatesh Kanakala
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Surgical Patients ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Surgical Patient ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Analysis Model ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
The Cost

Access to remote appointments (RA) by telephone or video is increasing as technology advances and becomes more available to patients. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aims to discover whether surgical patients are satisfied with RAs when compared with conventional outpatient clinics (OPC). A literature search of RCTs of surgical patient satisfaction of RAs versus OPC appointments was performed. The PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were searched to include articles from January 2000 to 2020. A random-effects meta-analysis model was used to compare outcomes. All 7 RCTs showed that patients were as satisfied with RAs as OPC appointments (RR = 1.00, [0.98-1.02]; P = .73). Furthermore, both patient cohorts would prefer RAs for future follow-up (RR = 2.29, [1.96-2.97]; P < .00001). One RCT found the cost to institutions was less in the RA group ($19.05 vs $52.76) and another found the patients would save $9.96 on transportation costs. The majority of RCTs suggested cost to patients and or institutions would be less for RA. In conclusion, surgical patients are satisfied with RAs and in fact would prefer them.

scholarly journals Is Culture Expansion Necessary in Autologous Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Therapy to Obtain Superior Results in the Management of Knee Osteoarthritis?—Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 220
Author(s):  
Sathish Muthu ◽  
Randhi Rama Kartheek ◽  
Naveen Jeyaraman ◽  
Ramya Lakshmi Rajendran ◽  
Manish Khanna ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Group Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Osteoarthritis Of The Knee ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
The Impact

Study Design: Meta-analysis. Objectives: We aimed to analyze the impact of cultured expansion of autologous mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) in the management of osteoarthritis of the knee from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) available in the literature. Materials and Methods: We conducted independent and duplicate electronic database searches including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library until August 2021 for RCTs analyzing the efficacy and safety of culture-expanded compared to non-cultured autologous MSCs in the management of knee osteoarthritis. The Visual Analog Score (VAS) for pain, Western Ontario McMaster University’s Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Lysholm score, Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and adverse events were the analyzed outcomes. Analysis was performed in R-platform using OpenMeta [Analyst] software. Results: Overall, 17 studies involving 767 patients were included for analysis. None of the studies made a direct comparison of the culture expanded and non-cultured MSCs, hence we pooled the results of all the included studies of non-cultured and cultured types of MSC sources and made a comparative analysis of the outcomes. At six months, culture expanded MSCs showed significantly better improvement (p < 0.001) in VAS outcome. Uncultured MSCs, on the other hand, demonstrated significant VAS improvement in the long term (12 months) in VAS (p < 0.001), WOMAC (p = 0.025), KOOS score (p = 0.016) where cultured-expanded MSCs failed to demonstrate a significant change. Culturing of MSCs did not significantly increase the complications noted (p = 0.485). On sub-group analysis, adipose-derived uncultured MSCs outperformed culture-expanded MSCs at both short term (six months) and long term (12 months) in functional outcome parameters such as WOMAC (p < 0.001, p = 0.025), Lysholm (p < 0.006), and KOOS (p < 0.003) scores, respectively, compared to their controls. Conclusions: We identified a void in literature evaluating the impact of culture expansion of MSCs for use in knee osteoarthritis. Our indirect analysis of literature showed that culture expansion of autologous MSCs is not a necessary factor to obtain superior results in the management of knee osteoarthritis. Moreover, while using uncultured autologous MSCs, we recommend MSCs of adipose origin to obtain superior functional outcomes. However, we urge future trials of sufficient quality to validate our findings to arrive at a consensus on the need for culture expansion of MSCs for use in cellular therapy of knee osteoarthritis.

Incidence and impact of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies in clinical trials of severe traumatic brain injury: A systematic review

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 398-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guillaume Leblanc ◽  
Amélie Boutin ◽  
Michèle Shemilt ◽  
François Lauzier ◽  
Lynne Moore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Severe Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Overall Mortality

Background Most deaths following severe traumatic brain injury follow decisions to withdraw life-sustaining therapies. However, the incidence of the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies and its potential impact on research data interpretation have been poorly characterized. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the reporting and the impact of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies in randomized clinical trials of patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Methods We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, BIOSIS, and CINAHL databases and references of included trials. All randomized controlled trials published between January 2002 and August 2015 in the six highest impact journals in general medicine, critical care medicine, and neurocritical care (total of 18 journals) were considered for eligibility. Randomized controlled trials were included if they enrolled adult patients with severe traumatic brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale ≤ 8) and reported data on mortality. Our primary objective was to assess the proportion of trials reporting the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies in a publication. Our secondary objectives were to describe the overall mortality rate, the proportion of deaths following the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies, and to assess the impact of the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies on trial results. Results From 5987 citations retrieved, we included 41 randomized trials (n = 16,364, ranging from 11 to 10,008 patients). Overall mortality was 23% (range = 3%–57%). Withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies was reported in 20% of trials (8/41, 932 patients in trials) and the crude number of deaths due to the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies was reported in 17% of trials (7/41, 884 patients in trials). In these trials, 63% of deaths were associated with the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies (105/168). An analysis carried out by imputing a 4% differential rate in instances of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies between study groups yielded different results and conclusions in one third of the trials. Conclusion Data on the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies are incompletely reported in randomized controlled trials of patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Given the high proportion of deaths due to the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies in severe traumatic brain injury patients, and the potential of this medical decision to influence the results of clinical trials, instances of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies should be systematically reported in clinical trials in this group of patients.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update on the Use of Chemotherapy Sensitivity and Resistance Assays

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (24) ◽  
pp. 3328-3330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harold J. Burstein ◽  
Pamela B. Mangu ◽  
Mark R. Somerfield ◽  
Deborah Schrag ◽  
David Samson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Chemotherapeutic Agents ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Treatment Preferences ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Chemotherapy Sensitivity ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
American Society

Purpose To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Technology Assessment guidelines on chemotherapy sensitivity and resistance assays (CSRAs) published in 2004. Methods An Update Working Group reviewed data published between December 1, 2003, and May 31, 2010. MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched. The literature search yielded 11,313 new articles. The limits for “human and English” were used, and then standard ASCO search strings for randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, guidelines, and reviews were added, yielding 1,298 articles for abstract review. Of these, only 21 articles met predefined inclusion criteria and underwent full text review, and five reports of randomized controlled trials were included for data extraction. Results Review of the literature does not identify any CSRAs for which the evidence base is sufficient to support use in oncology practice. Recommendations The use of CSRAs to select chemotherapeutic agents for individual patients is not recommended outside of the clinical trial setting. Oncologists should make chemotherapy treatment recommendations based on published reports of clinical trials and a patient's health status and treatment preferences. Because the in vitro analytic strategy has potential importance, participation in clinical trials evaluating these technologies remains a priority.

scholarly journals PRP Injections for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Cartilage ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 194760352093117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Filardo ◽  
Davide Previtali ◽  
Francesca Napoli ◽  
Christian Candrian ◽  
Stefano Zaffagnini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Clinically Significant

Objective To evaluate effectiveness, in terms of patient-reported outcome measures, of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for knee osteoarthritis compared to placebo and other intraarticular treatments. Design PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, as well as the gray literature were searched on January 17, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PRP injections with placebo or other injectable treatments, in any language, on humans, were included. Risk of bias was assessed following the Cochrane guidelines; quality of evidence was graded using the GRADE guidelines. Results Thirty-four RCTs, including 1403 knees in PRP groups and 1426 in control groups, were selected. WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) score favored PRP, with a statistically and clinically significant difference versus placebo at 12-month follow-up ( P = 0.02) and versus HA (hyaluronic acid) at 6-month ( P < 0.001) and 12-month ( P < 0.001) follow-ups. A clinically significant difference favoring PRP versus steroids was documented for VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) pain ( P < 0.001), KOOS (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) pain ( P < 0.001), function in daily activities ( P = 0.001), and quality of life ( P < 0.001) at 6-month follow-up. However, superiority of PRP did not reach the minimal clinically important difference for all outcomes, and quality of evidence was low. Conclusions The effect of platelet concentrates goes beyond its mere placebo effect, and PRP injections provide better results than other injectable options. This benefit increases over time, being not significant at earlier follow-ups but becoming clinically significant after 6 to 12 months. However, although substantial, the improvement remains partial and supported by low level of evidence. This finding urges further research to confirm benefits and identify the best formulation and indications for PRP injections in knee OA.

scholarly journals Intradiskal Injection of Methylene Blue for Discogenic Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 82 (02) ◽  
pp. 161-165
Author(s):  
Ming Deng ◽  
Hui Huang ◽  
Yong-gang Ma ◽  
Yan Zhou ◽  
Qing Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Methylene Blue ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Introduction Intradiskal injection of methylene blue has some potential in alleviating discogenic back pain. This meta-analysis aims to explore the impact of intradiskal injection of methylene blue for discogenic back pain. Methods Several databases such as PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases have been searched through November 2019, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of intradiskal injection of methylene blue for discogenic back pain are included. Results Three RCTs are included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with control group for discogenic back pain, intradiskal injection of methylene blue remarkably decreased pain scores at 3 months (mean difference [MD] = –0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] = –0.96 to –0.46; p < 0.00001) and 6 months (MD = –13.92; 95% CI = –22.31 to –5.54; p = 001) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 4 to 6 weeks (MD = –10.39; 95% CI = –16.95 to –3.83; p = 0.002) and 3 months (MD = –3.66; 95% CI = –4.85 to –2.48; p < 0.00001), but demonstrated no obvious effect on ODI at 6 months (MD = –11.76; 95% CI = –33.33 to 9.80; p = 0.28). Conclusions Intradiskal injection of methylene blue can substantially decrease pain scores and improve function for discogenic back pain.

scholarly journals Hydroxychloroquine plus standard care compared with the standard care alone in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bahman Amani ◽  
Ahmad Khanijahani ◽  
Behnam Amani
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

AbstractBackground & ObjectiveThe efficacy and safety of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating coronavirus disease COVID-19 pandemic is disputed. This study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of HCQ plus the standard of care in COVID-19 patients.MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, and web of sciences were searched up to June 1, 2020. The references list of the key studies was reviewed for additional relevant resources. Clinical studies registry databases were searched for identifying potential clinical trials. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3).ResultsThree randomized controlled trials with total number of 242 patients were identified eligible for meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between HCQ and standard care in terms of viral clearance (Risk ratio [RR] = 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91, 1.16; P = 0.68), disease progression (RR = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.10, 0.81; P = 0.94), Chest CT (RR = 1.40; 95% CI = 1.03, 1.91; P = 0.03). There is a significant difference between HCQ and standard care for adverse events (RR = 2.88; 95% CI = 1.50, 5.54; P = 0.002).ConclusionAlthough the current meta-analysis failed to confirm the efficacy and safety of HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, further rigorous randomized clinical trials are necessary to evaluate conclusively the efficacy and safety of HCQ against COVID-19.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document