published meta-analysis   sensitivity analysis   studies

vitamin C in COVID 19 outpatients - Summary of results

OutcomeTE95% CInkI2ROBPub. bias deathsdetailed resultsThomas (vitamin c only), 2021 2.11 [0.07; 64.28] Thomas (vitamin c plus zinc), 2021 3.54 [0.16; 80.27] 2.79[0.28; 28.01]Thomas (vitamin c only), 2021, Thomas (vitamin c plus zinc), 202120%206moderatenot evaluable clinical improvementdetailed resultsThomas (vitamin c only), 2021 3.14 [0.60; 16.38] Thomas (vitamin c plus zinc), 2021 0.85 [0.27; 2.65] 1.41[0.41; 4.91]Thomas (vitamin c only), 2021, Thomas (vitamin c plus zinc), 2021238%206moderatenot evaluable clinical improvement (7-day)detailed resultsThomas (vitamin c only), 2021 3.14 [0.60; 16.38] 3.14[0.60; 16.38]Thomas (vitamin c only), 202110%98NAnot evaluable hospitalizationdetailed resultsThomas (vitamin c only), 2021 0.68 [0.11; 4.27] Thomas (vitamin c plus zinc), 2021 2.15 [0.53; 8.80] 1.40[0.46; 4.29]Thomas (vitamin c only), 2021, Thomas (vitamin c plus zinc), 202120%206moderatenot evaluable0.55.01.0relative treatment effectwww.metaEvidence.org2024-03-28 15:36 +01:00

TE: relative treatment effect (measured by a risk ratio, an odds ratio or an hazard ratio depending on what is reported in the papers); k: number of studies; n: total number of patients; ROB: risk of bias (ROB 2.0); Pub. bias: publication bias; OBS: observational studies; RCT: randomized clinical trials
studied treatment is better when TE > 1; studied treatment is better when TE < 1;

pathologies: 97 - treatments: 523,885 - roots T: 290