ReviewJournal of family medicine and primary care2025
Efficacy and safety of remdesivir and favipiravir in COVID-19 patients - A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronavirus-2019 (Covid-19) has led to a severe medical, social and economic crisis globally. The use of antivirals has given inconsistent results; thus, systematic summaries of available evidence may help us to understand its effectiveness. The current investigation was planned to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of antivirals for Covid-19. Using 'MeSH' term databases were searched on Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, OVID, Cochrane Library, and Limits- English Language only. Title/abstract screening, full-text screening and data extraction were carried out by three authors. Pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method of random effects for meta-analysis. Ten studies were found eligible for inclusion: randomized controlled trials Moderate-quality evidence suggests a likely clinical benefit from the use of remdesivir in improving the number of recoveries (OR 1.46; 95% CI 1.23-1.74; I2=0%). A possibility of a higher mortality rate is also suggested by high-quality evidence with remdesivir (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.57-1.05, I2=14%). Favipiravir also showed patient's higher mortality outcome (OR 0.69;95% CI 0.24-2.01, I2 = 0%). Although the need for oxygen therapy (OR 0.70 95% CI 0.40-1.23; I2= 72%) was highly significant p < 0.001** and Remdesivir/Favipiravir was determined to be beneficial overall for male gender data across all studies (OR 0.77; 95% CI;0.37-1.60;I2=90%) and highly significant
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.