SynthesisInflammopharmacology2023
Efficacy and safety of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) antibodies in COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Inflammopharmacology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative innate immune responses across major RNA and DNA viral infections: Mechanisms, immunopathology, and therapeutic perspectives.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Review
- Disentangling Shared and Differential Genetic Architectures Between COVID-19 and Other Respiratory Disorders-A Genome-Wide Multi-Omics Framework.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to determine the efficacy and safety of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) antibodies in COVID-19 patients.
methodsWe searched Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases until July 27, 2022. Both randomized control trials (RCTs) and cohort studies were included and analyzed separately. The outcomes included mortality, incidence of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), ventilation improvement rate (need oxygen therapy to without oxygen therapy), secondary infection, and adverse events (AEs). The odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated by a random-effects meta-analysis model.
resultsFive RCTs and 2 cohort studies with 1726 COVID-19 patients were recruited (n = 866 in the GM-CSF antibody group and n = 891 in the control group). GM-CSF antibodies treatment reduced the incidence of IMV, which was supported by two cohort studies (OR 0.16; 95% CI 0.03, 0.74) and three RCTs (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.41, 0.94). GM-CSF antibodies resulted in slight but not significant reductions in mortality (based on two cohort studies and five RCTs) and ventilation improvement (based on one cohort study and two RCTs). The sensitive analysis further showed the results of mortality and ventilation improvement rate became statistically significant when one included study was removed. Besides, GM-CSF antibodies did not increase the risks of the second infection (based on one cohort study and five RCTs) and AEs (based on five RCTs).
conclusionGM-CSF antibody treatments may be an efficacious and well-tolerant way for the treatment of COVID-19. Further clinical evidence is still warranted.
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.