Table Graph
      published meta-analysis   sensitivity analysis   studies

ruxolitinib in COVID-19 severe or critically - Summary of results

OutcomeTE95% CInkI2ROBPub. bias deathsdetailed resultsCao, 2020 0.15 [0.01; 3.29] DEVENT, 0 0.47 [0.22; 1.00] 0.44[0.21; 0.92]Cao, 2020, DEVENT, 020%41NAnot evaluable clinical deteriorationdetailed resultsCao, 2020 0.11 [0.01; 2.21] 0.11[0.01; 2.21]Cao, 202010%41NAnot evaluable clinical improvementdetailed resultsCao, 2020 1.67 [0.84; 3.33] 1.67[0.84; 3.33]Cao, 202010%42NAnot evaluable clinical improvement (14-day)detailed resultsCao, 2020 2.00 [0.58; 6.94] 2.00[0.58; 6.94]Cao, 202010%41NAnot evaluable clinical improvement (21-day)detailed resultsCao, 2020 1.50 [0.22; 10.08] 1.50[0.22; 10.08]Cao, 202010%41NAnot evaluable clinical improvement (7-day)detailed resultsCao, 2020 2.38 [0.38; 14.70] 2.38[0.38; 14.70]Cao, 202010%41NAnot evaluable clinical improvement (time to event analysis only)detailed resultsCao, 2020 1.67 [0.84; 3.33] 1.67[0.84; 3.33]Cao, 202010%42NAnot evaluable radiologic improvement (14-day)detailed resultsCao, 2020 5.54 [1.01; 30.50] 5.54[1.01; 30.50]Cao, 202010%41NAnot evaluable serious adverse eventsdetailed resultsCao, 2020 0.11 [0.01; 2.21] 0.11[0.01; 2.21]Cao, 202010%41NAnot evaluable adverse eventsdetailed resultsCao, 2020 1.60 [0.38; 6.81] 1.60[0.38; 6.81]Cao, 202010%41NAnot evaluable0.010.01.0relative treatment effectwww.metaEvidence.org2024-04-28 09:32 +02:00

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: 91 - treatments: 606 - roots T: 290

- About us - Contact us - Method - RSS Made with in Lyon - Credits - Privacy policy - Licence Creative Commons