Repurposing of drugs for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  1. Pinky KOTECHA
  2. Alexander LIGHT
  3. Enrico CHECCUCCI
  4. Daniele AMPARORE
  5. Cristian FIORI
  6. Francesco PORPIGLIA
  7. Prokar DASGUPTA
  8. Oussama ELHAGE

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 10.23736/s0031-0808.20.04024-0
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.07.20124677: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    RandomizationThis included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as well as observational studies (including cohort and control studies).
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    We searched Ovid-MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library for articles published any time up to April 22, 2020.
    EMBASE
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    Cochrane library
    suggested: (Cochrane Library, RRID:SCR_013000)
    Quality of studies (risk of bias) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 for RCTs (Figure 2) and ROBINS-I (30) for non-RCTs (Figure 3).
    Cochrane RoB
    suggested: (Robot Reviewer, RRID:SCR_018961)
    All meta-analyses were performed using the Cochrane Review Manager (v.5.3, 2014; Cochrane Initiative).
    Cochrane Review Manager
    suggested: None
    Cochrane Initiative
    suggested: None

    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:
    The present systematic review has several limitations. The paucity of RCTs, the ‘gold standard’ for comparing interventions, is probably due to difficulties with randomization and blinding in the unprecedented and stressful environment faced by healthcare services. Therefore, a large number of studies are observational or cohort studies which are quicker to organize and implement, therefore obtaining results rapidly which is essential as the number of worldwide cases is rising at an alarming rate. Another limitation is that studies vary in the outcomes measured, therefore side-by-side comparisons become more difficult. Due to this heterogeneity of the studies, we were only able to perform a meta-analysis on a maximum of 3 studies. In one of the analyses regarding negative seroconversion rate, they were measured at different time points, therefore not giving an accurate view. A large proportion of the studies included also do not measure survival and morbidity outcomes which are important. Many of the studies included have also not been formally peer reviewed yet but, due to the urgency of the pandemic, draft manuscripts have been uploaded. We included every study found in our systematic review which may have introduced bias, therefore it is important to analyse all studies cautiously as the selection of patients is important as different studies have recruited patients with a different severity of Covid-19. It is also important to consider the timeline of the administration o...

    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 10.1101/2020.06.07.20124677v1 on medRxiv