Efficacy of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 infection: A meta-review of systematic reviews and an updated meta-analysis

  1. Tawanda Chivese
  2. Omran A.H. Musa
  3. George Hindy
  4. Noor Al-Wattary
  5. Saif Badran
  6. Nada Soliman
  7. Ahmed T.M. Aboughalia
  8. Joshua T. Matizanadzo
  9. Mohamed M. Emara
  10. Lukman Thalib
  11. Suhail A.R. Doi

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.tmaid.2021.102135
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.07.28.20164012v2 on medRxiv
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.28.20164012: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    BlindingData extraction: Search results were uploaded on to the Rayyan platform (58) where 2 authors blindly screened titles and abstracts.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    We searched for studies in the following electronic databases; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) (The Cochrane Library), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the China Academic Journals Full Text Database, EMBASE and MEDLINE through PubMed, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and the databases of preprints (medRXIV and bioRxiv).
    Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
    suggested: None
    Cochrane Library
    suggested: (Cochrane Library, RRID:SCR_013000)
    Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials
    suggested: (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, RRID:SCR_006576)
    EMBASE
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    MEDLINE
    suggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    We hand-searched the databases of preprints (medRXIV and bioRxiv) and the websites for the World Health Organization Solidarity Trial and the U.K. Recovery Trial.
    bioRxiv
    suggested: (bioRxiv, RRID:SCR_003933)
    The STATA software program (66) was utilized for meta-analysis.
    STATA
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    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:
    An important consideration in this meta-review is the impact of methodological limitations on the results of both the primary studies and the systematic reviews and meta-analyses included in this umbrella review. These limitations could primarily have resulted from the urgency of the need to find a cure, at short notice, for a pandemic that seems to be worsening in many countries to date. The limitations include, but are not limited to, small study sample sizes, the scarcity of randomized controlled trials, and the lack of methodological rigueur in the primary studies. All the reviews, except one (36), included observational studies, which tend to have confounding and may lead to biased estimates of effects. An additional weakness of these observational studies is that patients and clinicians will most likely choose an experimental drug, compared to standard of care which comprises of symptom management during a pandemic with a perceived high risk of death and no cure. Faced with a life-threatening illness, patients with severe illness will likely choose the experimental drug in the absence of proven alternatives, while those with mild to moderate disease may not want the experimental drug. The inclusion of observational studies in these meta-analyses seems to have been driven by the lack of good quality experimental studies and the need to use as much of the available information as possible. The observational studies were bigger than the RCTs and therefore tended to influen...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    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.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2020.07.28.20164012v1 on medRxiv