Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic ReviewEurope PMC

A systematic review of trials currently investigating therapeutic modalities for post-acute COVID-19 syndrome and registered on WHO International Clinical Trials Platform

Ashraf N., Abou Shaar B., Taha RM., Arabi TZ., Sabbah BN., Alkodaymi MS.

Systematic Review on Systemic / IV, published in Clin Microbiol Infect (2023) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Systematic Review
Journal
Clin Microbiol Infect (2023)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
36642173
PMCID
PMC9837206
DOI
10.1016/j.cmi.2023.01.007
Citations
37

Abstract (original English)

Background Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS) is a well-recognized, complex, systemic disease which is associated with substantial morbidity. There is a paucity of established interventions for the treatment of patients with this syndrome. Objectives To systematically review registered trials currently investigating therapeutic modalities for PACS. Data sources A search was conducted up to the 16 September, 2022, using the COVID-19 section of the WHO Internal Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions Interventional clinical trials of any sample size examining any therapeutic modality targeting persistent symptoms among individuals after diagnosis with COVID-19. Methods Data on trial characteristics and intervention characteristics were collected and summarized. Results After screening 17 125 trials, 388 trials, from 42 countries, were eligible. In total, we had 406 interventions, of which 368 were mono-therapeutic strategies, whereas 38 were intervention combinations. Among 824 primary outcomes identified, there were >300 different outcomes. Rehabilitation was the most employed class of intervention in 169 trials. We encountered 76 trials examining the pharmacological agents of various classes, with the most common agent being colchicine. Complementary and alternative medicine encompassed 64 trials exploring traditional Chin

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

How we grade evidence
HumansWorld Health OrganizationTranscranial Direct Current StimulationCOVID-19SARS-CoV-2Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research