Kiran, FNU

Background: Vitamin C is a vital nutrient that functions as an antioxidant and is important as a co-factor and regulator of several immune system pathways. The role of vitamin C in the treatment of COVID-19 is largely debatable. We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vitamin C in the treatment of COVID-19. Methods: We searched several electronic databases from inception to March 2023 to retrieve randomized controlled trials on the use of vitamin C for COVID-19. RevMan 5.4 was used to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) along with confidence intervals (95% CI) using a random-effects model. Results: We included nine randomized controlled trials in our meta-analysis. Vitamin C did not reduce the all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 compared to the standard treatment (RR 0.92, 95% CI: 0.83–1.02; I 2 = 1%). Vitamin C was found to be associated with a similar incidence of ventilation in COVID-19 patients when compared to standard treatment (RR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.87–1.11, I 2 = 0%). There were no significant differences between both groups regarding the incidence of hospitalization (RR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.98–1.02; I 2 = 0%), incidence of recovery (RR 1.57, 95% CI: 0.45–5.50; I 2 = 52%), hospital mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI: 0.44–1.06; I 2 = 0%) and length of hospital stay (MD −0.63, 95% CI: −3.04 to 1.78; I 2 = 81%). Conclusion: Vitamin C administration did not reduce all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients. Additional studies are required to evaluate the role of vitamin C in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 especially in ICU patients.

Vitamin C is a vital nutrient that functions as an antioxidant and is important as a co-factor and regulator of several immune system pathways. The role of vitamin C in the treatment of COVID-19 is largely debatable. We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vitamin C in the treatment of COVID-19. We searched several electronic databases from inception to March 2023 to retrieve randomized controlled trials on the use of Vitamin C for COVID-19. RevMan 5.4 was used to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and Mean Differences (MDs) along with confidence intervals (95% CI) using a random-effects model. We included 9 randomized controlled trials in our meta-analysis. Vitamin C did not reduce the all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 compared to the standard treatment [RR 0.86, 95% CI: 0.65-1.14; I 2 =66%]. Vitamin C was found to be associated with an increased incidence of ventilation in COVID-19 patients when compared to standard treatment [RR 1.37, 95% CI: 1.18-1.59; I 2 =58%]. There were no significant differences between both groups regarding the incidence of hospitalization [RR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.98-1.02; I 2 =0%], incidence of recovery [RR 1.57, 95% CI: 0.45-5.50; I 2 =52%], hospital mortality [RR 0.68, 95% CI: 0.44-1.06; I 2 =0%] and length of hospital stay [MD -0.63, 95% CI: -3.04 to 1.78; I 2 =81%]. Vitamin C administration did not reduce all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients. Additional studies are required to evaluate the role of Vitamin C in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 especially in ICU patients.

Abstract Importance: Severe gender gap in academic research output is pervasive across all medical specialties, including hematology and oncology. Objective: This bibliometric study aimed to investigate the representation of females in premier first and last authorship positions of hematology- and oncology-related randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2000–2022. Additionally, we investigated the trend of females in first authorship positions with a male or female senior author. Design: Bibliometric analysis of clinically oriented hematology and oncology RCTs published between 2000 and 2022 across all PubMed-indexed journals. Participants: First and last authors of 5,891 hematology- and oncology-related RCTs. Main Outcomes: Change in the proportion of female first and senior authors and the proportion of RCTs with the same and cross-gender dyads of first and senior authors. Results: 5,891 RCTs were available with identifiable gender of first and senior authors. A total of 49 countries and 62 journals were represented in our study sample. The proportion of females in our study population was 22.9% (n = 1,349) in the first authorship and 17.5% (n = 1,032) in the senior authorship positions and were predominantly affiliated with institutions in high-income countries (94.1%, n = 1,270 and 95.3%, n = 984). We also noted a significant upward trend in the percentage of female authors in the first authorship position (16.3% in 2000 to 32.4% in 2022, p = 0.001) between 2000 and 2022; the trend was stronger with male than female senior authors. However, the odds of the females in the first authorship position with a female senior author were significantly higher only when both authors came from high-income countries [OR = 1.702 (95%CI 1.461–1.984; p < 0.0001]. The proportion of female senior authors remained stable during the study period. Conclusions and Relevance: Despite early trends in closing the gender gap in the authorship of hematology- and oncology-related RCTs, females remain severely underrepresented in premier authorship positions. The increasing proportion of female authors in the first authorship position with a male senior author indicated that a more inclusive effort to train, mentor, and encourage young female physician-scientists with the involvement of senior male and female researchers will likely accelerate the overall increase in female authorship.