SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2021
Prophylaxis against covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
67 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 114 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical effects of ursodeoxycholic acid in COVID-19 infection: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Drug treatments for mild or moderate covid-19: systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Pooled it
- Repurposed drug studies on the primary prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the pandemic: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open respiratory research · 2023Pooled it
- Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis of early studies on ivermectin in SARS-CoV-2 infection.GeroScience · 2023Pooled it
- Medications for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2022Pooled it
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials of hydroxychloroquine for the prevention of COVID-19.European journal of epidemiology · 2022Pooled it
- Prevention of venous thromboembolic events in patients with lower leg immobilization after trauma: Systematic review and network meta-analysis with meta-epsidemiological approach.PLoS medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Potential limitations in systematic review studies assessing the effect of the main intervention for treatment/therapy of COVID-19 patients: An overview.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Improving the adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures in the community: Evidence brief for policy.Frontiers in public health · 2022Pooled it
- Antibody and cellular therapies for treatment of covid-19: a living systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysisBMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Pooled it
- What can we learn from network meta-analyses published in top medical journals.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Risk of bias and low reproducibility in meta-analytic evidence from fast-tracked publications during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- Review of the WHO guideline on preventive chemotherapy for public health control of strongyloidiasis.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2025Review
- Assessing the comparative effects of interventions in COPD: a tutorial on network meta-analysis for clinicians.Respiratory research · 2024Review
- Extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (PRISMA-LSR): checklist and explanation.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2024Article
- Article
- The efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 prophylaxis and clinical assessment: an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
35 authors at 10 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
updatesThis is the second version (first update) of the living systematic review, replacing the previous version (available as a data supplement). When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.
objectiveTo determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).
designLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). DATA SOURCES: World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 4 March 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials in which people at risk of covid-19 were allocated to prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.
methodsAfter duplicate data abstraction, we conducted random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach.
resultsThe second iteration of this living NMA includes 32 randomised trials which enrolled 25 147 participants and addressed 21 different prophylactic drugs; adding 21 trials (66%), 18 162 participants (75%) and 16 (76%) prophylactic drugs. Of the 16 prophylactic drugs analysed, none provided convincing evidence of a reduction in the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. For admission to hospital and mortality outcomes, no prophylactic drug proved different than standard care or placebo. Hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation—risk difference for hydroxychloroquine (RD) 6 more per 1000 (95% credible interval (CrI) 2 more to 10 more); for vitamin C combined with zinc, RD 69 more per 1000 (47 more to 90 more), moderate certainty evidence.
conclusionsMuch of the evidence remains very low certainty and we therefore anticipate future studies evaluating drugs for prophylaxis may change the results for SARS-CoV-2 infection, admission to hospital and mortality outcomes. Both hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase adverse effects. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement.
fundingThis study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR-IRSC:0579001321).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.