SynthesisReviews in medical virology2026
Timing, Titre, and Host Determinants of Convalescent Plasma Efficacy in COVID-19: A Systematic Review With Design-Stratified Narrative Synthesis.
Synthesis in Reviews in medical virology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The efficacy of convalescent plasma (CP) in COVID-19 has been contested, with large randomized trials producing conflicting results that led to recommendations against routine use. We performed a systematic review with design-stratified narrative synthesis (PRISMA 2020; SWiM; OSF: https://osf.io/tjcuq) to test whether these conflicting outcomes can be reconciled through three interacting determinants-timing, antibody titre, and host characteristics-using a standardized 91-field extraction matrix applied to each study. PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched through May 2026. Thirty-one studies (20,793 patients; 8 RCTs, 23 observational) were included. The synthesis indicates that CP is effective, but only under a specific convergence of conditions: when administered early in the disease course, with sufficient antibody titre, to seronegative or immunocompromised hosts who have not yet mounted an endogenous antibody response. Among RCTs analysing timing, 4 of 6 found benefit with earlier administration; for titre, 3 of 4 RCTs with explicit comparisons found benefit with higher-titre CP; and two large RCTs (combined n = 12,522) demonstrated preferential benefit in seronegative recipients. This interpretation is consistent with modelling estimates that CP, deployed largely to hospitalised patients, nonetheless saved tens of thousands of lives in the United States during the first pandemic year, an effect attributed to the subset treated early enough to modify disease progression. A second, previously unquantified finding concerns antibody class: characterisation of non-IgG immunoglobulins was nearly absent, with only 2 of 31 studies-both from our group-reporting IgA or IgM data, despite evidence that IgA and IgM are among the most potent neutralising classes against SARS-CoV-2. This hypothesis-generating observation identifies a systematic gap in CP product assessment. These findings reframe CP efficacy from a binary question to a conditional one and provide a template for the precision deployment of passive immunotherapy in future pandemics.
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.