Assessment of Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine Safety Profiles: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  1. Lu Ren
  2. Wilson Xu
  3. James L. Overton
  4. Shandong Yu
  5. Nipavan Chiamvimonvat
  6. Phung N. Thai

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3389/fphar.2020.562777
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.02.20088872: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    RandomizationOur objective was to identify all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared the safety profiles of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine with placebo or other active agents.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, and the ClinicalTrials.gov for all the RCTs comparing CQ or HCQ with placebo or other active agents, published before March 31, 2020.
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    MEDLINE
    suggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)
    Cochrane
    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)
    Medical subject headings (MeSH terms) and keywords such as “randomized controlled trial,” “adverse effects,” “tolerability,” “toxicity,” and “side effects” were used.
    MeSH
    suggested: (MeSH, RRID:SCR_004750)
    Study Quality Assessment and Risk of Bias: Risk of bias in the individual studies included for meta-analysis was assessed using the Cochrane risk assessment tool.
    Cochrane risk assessment tool
    suggested: None
    All analyses were performed using STATA 16 (Stata, College Station, TX, USA).
    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.02.20088872v1 on medRxiv