↓ Skip to main content

Use of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Jornal de Pneumologia, February 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#5 of 718)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
114 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Use of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Jornal de Pneumologia, February 2022
DOI 10.36416/1806-3756/e20210393
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suzana E Tanni, Antonio Silvinato, Idevaldo Floriano, Hélio A Bacha, Alexandre Naime Barbosa, Wanderley M Bernardo

Abstract

Studies in the literature regarding the use of remdesivir to treat COVID-19 patients have shown conflicting results. This study sought to answer questions related to the use of remdesivir for the treatment of patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19. This was a systematic review and meta-analysis including phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies selected from various databases, comparing patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19 receiving remdesivir and controls. A total of 207 studies were retrieved, 9 of which met the eligibility criteria and were included in the study. The meta-analysis using RCTs alone showed no statistically significant differences regarding mortality or use of mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation between remdesivir and control groups, and the quality of evidence was moderate and low, respectively. The use of remdesivir increased the recovery rate by 6% (95% CI, 3-9); p = 0.004) and the clinical improvement rate by 7% (95% CI, 1-14); p = 0.02). Additionally, no significant differences in mortality were found between remdesivir and control groups when the meta-analysis used observational cohort studies alone (risk difference = -0.01 (95% CI, -0.02 to 0.01; p = 0.32), the quality of evidence being moderate, and the risk of adverse events was 4% ([95% CI, -0.08 to 0.01]; p = 0.09). The use of remdesivir for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 had no significant impact on clinically important outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 114 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 19%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Professor 2 5%
Librarian 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 22 51%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 14%
Environmental Science 2 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Chemistry 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 24 56%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 80. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 April 2024.
All research outputs
#540,181
of 25,556,408 outputs
Outputs from Jornal de Pneumologia
#5
of 718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,765
of 452,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Jornal de Pneumologia
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,556,408 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 718 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 452,294 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them