SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
The impact of SARS-CoV-2 VOCs on clinical outcomes: an overview of reviews.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Synthesizing data from existing literature is crucial for validating the robustness of associations, assessing data quality, and forming recommendations, especially given the vast amount of information available on SARS-CoV-2. This study aims to conduct an overview of reviews to evaluate the strength and validity of associations between VOCs and specific clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Methods: An overview of reviews according to the principles of PRIOR protocol was performed searching multiple databases in January 2024 and an updated search was conducted in MEDLINE database in June 2025. Peer reviewed systematic reviews considering two or more VOCs and reporting on clinical outcomes such as mortality, hospitalization, severe disease, admission to ICU, and mechanical ventilation were included. Data on study population and measures of association between clinical outcome and VOCs were considered. The quality of the studies was assessed through the AMSTAR-2 tool. Effect sizes and confidence intervals for each association between VOCs and clinical outcomes were reported. Subgroup analyses were performed where feasible. A citation matrix was used to assess the overlap between the included systematic reviews. Results: Twelve studies were included in the review, with a total of 24 comparisons, primarily between Omicron and Delta variants (19/24). Omicron was consistently associated with better clinical outcomes compared to Delta. The confidence in the results of 10/12 studies was rated critically low. The overlap between the included reviews was minimal, with 10% having significant overlap (>15%). Conclusion: Our overview of reviews shows the lower hazard on human health of the Omicron compared to Delta variant. However, the quality of the reviews included was generally low, prompting the need for more rigorous systematic reviews. Systematic review registration: This overview of reviews was registered in PROSPERO, CRD42024500841; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024500841.
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.