ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Safety and Efficacy of Convalescent Plasma in COVID-19: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Association between COVID-19 convalescent plasma antibody levels and COVID-19 outcomes stratified by clinical status at presentation.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Pooled it
- COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Immunocompromised Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2023Pooled it
- Efficacy of tocilizumab in the treatment of COVID-19: An umbrella review.Reviews in medical virology · 2022Pooled it
- SFTSV: a priority pathogen in need of a cure-reviewing the therapeutic.Archives of microbiology · 2026Review
- Development of a nomogram for high antibody titre of COVID-19 convalescent plasma.Epidemiology and infection · 2024Article
- Vaccine-Boosted CCP Decreases Virus Replication and Hastens Resolution of Infection Despite Transiently Enhancing Disease in SARS-CoV-2-Infected Hamsters.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2024Article
- The Role of Convalescent Plasma in COVID-19: A Conclusive Post-Pandemic Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Review
- Home and Out-of-Hospital Therapy with COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in Europe.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in Hospitalized Patients-An Open-Label Phase II Clinical Trial.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma and Clinical Trials: Understanding Conflicting Outcomes.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2022Review
- Monoclonal Antibodies for Pre- and Postexposure Prophylaxis of COVID-19: Review of the Literature.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Convalescent Plasma for Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Single-Center Experience.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Review
- Vax-Plasma in Patients With Refractory COVID-19.Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2022Article
- Is Better Standardization of Therapeutic Antibody Quality in Emerging Diseases Epidemics Possible?Frontiers in immunology · 2022Article
- Clinical Management of Patients With B-Cell Depletion Agents to Treat or Prevent Prolonged and Severe SARS-COV-2 Infection: Defining a Treatment Pathway.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Convalescent plasma (CP) from patients recovered from COVID-19 is one of the most studied anti-viral therapies against SARS-COV-2 infection. The aim of this study is to summarize the evidence from the available systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of CP in COVID-19 through an overview of the published systematic reviews (SRs). A systematic literature search was conducted up to August 2021 in Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and Medrxiv databases to identify systematic reviews focusing on CP use in COVID-19. Two review authors independently evaluated reviews for inclusion, extracted data and assessed quality of evidence using AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Reviews) and GRADE tools. The following outcomes were analyzed: mortality, viral clearance, clinical improvement, length of hospital stay, adverse reactions. In addition, where possible, subgroup analyses were performed according to study design (e.g., RCTs vs. non-RCTs), CP neutralizing antibody titer and timing of administration, and disease severity. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the checklist for systematic reviews AMSTAR-2 and the GRADE assessment. Overall, 29 SRs met the inclusion criteria based on 53 unique primary studies (17 RCT and 36 non-RCT). Limitations to the methodological quality of reviews most commonly related to absence of a protocol (11/29) and funding sources of primary studies (27/29). Of the 89 analyses on which GRADE judgements were made, effect estimates were judged to be of high/moderate certainty in four analyses, moderate in 38, low in 38, very low in nine. Despite the variability in the certainty of the evidence, mostly related to the risk of bias and inconsistency, the results of this umbrella review highlight a mortality reduction in CP over standard therapy when administered early and at high titer, without increased adverse reactions.
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.