Outcomes of persons with coronavirus disease 2019 in hospitals with and without standard treatment with (hydroxy)chloroquine

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.14.20173369: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: A waiver for the use of hospital record data was obtained through the Institutional Review Board of Amsterdam UMC; however, patients were given the opportunity to opt out.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    There are some limitations we need to address. Although health care in the Netherlands has a homogeneous setup, there was some variability in standard protocols among the hospitals that could have led to residual confounding. The two non-(H)CQ-hospitals were tertiary (academic) centres, whereas the (H)CQ-hospitals comprised secondary care hospitals. Since we excluded subjects transferred to and from other hospitals, the referral role of the tertiary care hospitals was minimized. Furthermore, subjects in the (H)CQ hospitals were more likely to receive steroid treatment, while subjects in the non-(H)CQ hospitals were more likely to receive other experimental immunomodulatory drugs. The numbers of the individual types of medication were small, making it impossible to draw conclusions from these differences. The results of the RECOVERY trial (publication pending), suggested a lower mortality in patients treated with dexamethasone. Treatment with dexamethasone could therefore have resulted in a lower mortality in the group of (H)CQ hospitals. We did not find such an effect, even after correction in the full model. We also used extensive covariate adjustments, using various methods to minimize influence of differences in patient population among hospitals, and the similarity in outcomes between these methods is reassuring in this regard. Finally, because not every subject in the (H)CQ-hospitals actually received (H)CQ, the current efficacy estimate in our study is likely an underes...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:

    IdentifierStatusTitle
    NCT04261517CompletedEfficacy and Safety of Hydroxychloroquine for Treatment of C…
    NCT04307693TerminatedComparison of Lopinavir/Ritonavir or Hydroxychloroquine in P…


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.