DOI: 10.25402/fvl.17121500.v1
title: Supplementary materials.docx: Efficacy of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A meta-analysis

description: Table S1 PRISMA 2020 checklist [1]Table S2 MEDLINE search strategyTable S3 EMBASE search strategyTable S4 PubMed search strategyTable S5 CNKI search strategyTable S6 Wanfang search strategyTable S7 Wanfang Med Online search strategyTable S8 SinoMed search strategyTable S9 CQVIP search strategyTable S10 Characteristics of included studies and patientsTable S11 Risk of bias, randomized controlled trials (RoB2)Table S12 Risk of bias, observational studies (ROBINS-I)Figure S1 Forest plot for subgroup analysis by study design, time to negative conversion of SARS-CoV-2 tests<br>There is no significant difference between the pooled mean differences from randomized studies versus non-randomized studies (P=0.64).Figure S2 Forest plot for subgroup analysis by imputed versus non-imputed studies, time to negative conversion of SARS-CoV-2 tests<br>There is no significant difference between the pooled mean differences of imputed versus non-imputed studies (P=0.05).Figure S3 Forest plot for subgroup analysis by regimen, incidence of negative test conversion at day 7<br>There is no significant difference between different regimen subgroups (P=0.18).Figure S4 Forest plot for subgroup analysis by regimen, incidence of negative test conversion at day 14<br>There is no significant difference between different regimen subgroups (P=0.31).Figure S5 Forest plot for subgroup analysis by study design, incidence of negative test conversion at day 7<br>There is no significant difference between the pooled odds ratios from randomized studies versus non-randomized studies (P=0.08).Figure S6 Forest plot for subgroup analysis by study design, incidence of negative test conversion at day 14<br>There is no significant difference between the pooled odds ratios from randomized studies versus non-randomized studies (P=0.79).Figure S7 Forest plot for subgroup analysis by study design, length of stay<br>There is no significant difference between the pooled mean differences from randomized studies versus non-randomized studies (P=0.98).Figure S8 Forest plot for subgroup analysis by risk of bias ratings, length of stay<br>There is no significant difference between the pooled mean differences from studies with low/moderate risk of bias versus studies with high risk of bias (P=0.28).Figure S9 Forest plot for subgroup analysis by imputed versus non-imputed studies, length of stay<br>There is no significant difference between the pooled mean differences of imputed versus non-imputed studies (P=0.17).Figure S10 Forest plot for subgroup analysis by study design, mortality<br>There is no significant difference between the pooled odds ratios from randomized studies versus non-randomized studies (P=0.16).Figure S11 Forest plot for subgroup analysis by risk of bias ratings, mortality<br>There is no significant difference between the pooled odds ratios from studies with low/moderate risk of bias versus studies with high risk of bias (P=0.61).Figure S12 Forest plot for subgroup analysis by study design, time to fever resolution<br>There is no significant difference between the pooled mean differences from randomized studies versus non-randomized studies (P=0.93).Figure S13 Forest plot for subgroup analysis by imputed versus non-imputed studies, time to fever resolution<br>There is no significant difference between the pooled mean differences of imputed versus non-imputed studies (P=0.38).Figure S14 Forest plot for subgroup analysis by study design, incidence of mechanical ventilation<br>There is no significant difference between the pooled odds ratios from randomized studies versus non-randomized studies (P=0.39).Figure S15 Forest plot for subgroup analysis by risk of bias ratings, incidence of mechanical ventilation<br>There is no significant difference between the pooled odds ratios from studies with low/moderate risk of bias versus studies with high risk of bias (P=0.77).Figure S16 Forest plot for subgroup analysis by study design, incidence of adverse events<br>There is no significant difference between the pooled odds ratios from randomized studies versus non-randomized studies (P=0.88).Figure S17 Forest plot for subgroup analysis by risk of bias ratings, incidence of adverse events<br>There is no significant difference between the pooled odds ratios from studies with low/moderate risk of bias versus studies with high risk of bias (P=0.74).Figure S18 Forest plot for subgroup analysis by study design, incidence of QT prolongations<br>There is no significant difference between the pooled odds ratios from randomized studies versus non-randomized studies (P=0.89).Figure S19 Forest plot for subgroup analysis by risk of bias ratings, incidence of QT prolongations<br>There is no significant difference between the pooled odds ratios from studies with low/moderate risk of bias versus studies with high risk of bias (P=0.79).Figure S20 Bubble plot for meta-regression of cumulative chloroquine base dose, incidence of adverse events<br>There is significant correlation between the cumulative chloroquine base dose and the treatment effect (P=0.04).Table S13 P-values for meta-regression analyses<br>Figure S21 Funnel plot, incidence of mechanical ventilation<br>There is evidence of small study effects based on visual inspection and Egger’s regression test (PEgger=0.04).Figure S22 Forest plot for trim-and-fill analysis, incidence of mechanical ventilationFigure S23 Funnel plot, time to negative conversion of SARS-CoV-2 tests<br>There is no evidence of small study effects based on visual inspection.Figure S24 Funnel plot, incidence of negative test conversion at day 7<br>There is no evidence of small study effects based on visual inspection.Figure S25 Funnel plot, incidence of negative test conversion at day 14<br>There is no evidence of small study effects based on visual inspection.Figure S26 Funnel plot, length of stay<br>There is no evidence of small study effects based on visual inspection and Egger’s regression test (PEgger=0.26).Figure S27 Funnel plot, mortality<br>There is no evidence of small study effects based on visual inspection and Egger’s regression test (PEgger=0.83).Figure S28 Funnel plot, time to fever resolution<br>There is no evidence of small study effects based on visual inspection.Figure S29 Funnel plot, incidence of mechanical ventilation<br>There is evidence of small study effects based on visual inspection and Egger’s regression test (PEgger=0.04).Figure S30 Funnel plot, incidence of adverse events<br>There is no evidence of small study effects based on visual inspection and Egger’s regression test (PEgger=0.31).Figure S31 Funnel plot, incidence of severe adverse events<br>There is no evidence of small study effects based on visual inspection.Figure S32 Funnel plot, incidence of QT prolongations<br>There is no evidence of small study effects based on visual inspection and Egger’s regression test (PEgger=0.23).<br>