Current best evidence for clinical care (more info)
| Discipline / Specialty Area | Score |
|---|---|
| Family Medicine (FM)/General Practice (GP) | |
| General Internal Medicine-Primary Care(US) | |
| Hospital Doctor/Hospitalists | |
| Internal Medicine | |
The absence of a control group (no treatment/placebo) makes it impossible to determine whether chloroquine is efficacious or if treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir is harmful.
Too small and preliminary to be actionable.
A small sample size with early initiation of chloroquine. Unclear whether chloroquine actually provides benefit. Repeat study is needed with similar time of initiation of control vs chloroquine to evaluate for efficacy.
Adds to the evidence on this controversial topic, although the study is small and biases are quite likely. I find it notable that the authors fail to discuss imbalances in the baseline characteristics of the groups including age (CQ patients > 10 years younger on average) and shorter disease duration in CQ group.
Ridiculously small case series - 22 patients. This is of no use at all.