Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 566

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with covid-19 pneumonia who require oxygen: observational comparative study using routine care data

Open access
Mahévas, Matthieu, Tran, Viet-Thi, Roumier, Mathilde, Chabrol, Amélie, Paule, Romain, Guillaud, Constance, Fois, Elena, Lepeule, Raphael, Szwebel, Tali-Anne, Lescure, François-Xavier, Schlemmer, Frédéric, Matignon, Marie, Khellaf, Mehdi, Crickx, Etienne, Terrier, Benjamin, Morbieu, Caroline, Legendre, Paul, Dang, Julien, Schoindre, Yoland, Pawlotsky, Jean-Michel, Michel, Marc, Perrodeau, Elodie, Carlier, Nicolas, Roche, Nicolas, de Lastours, Victoire, Ourghanlian, Clément, Kerneis, Solen, Ménager, Philippe, Mouthon, Luc, Audureau, Etienne, Ravaud, Philippe, Godeau, Bertrand, Gallien, Sébastien, Costedoat-Chalumeau, Nathalie·2020·BMJ

Abstract

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) pneumonia who require oxygen. Design: Comparative observational study using data collected from routine care. Setting: Four French tertiary care centres providing care to patients with covid-19 pneumonia between 12 March and 31 March 2020. Participants: 181 patients aged 18-80 years with documented severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia who required oxygen but not intensive care. Interventions: Hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 600 mg/day within 48 hours of admission to hospital (treatment group) versus standard care without hydroxychloroquine (control group). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was survival without transfer to the intensive care unit at day 21. Secondary outcomes were overall survival, survival without acute respiratory distress syndrome, weaning from oxygen, and discharge from hospital to home or rehabilitation (all at day 21). Analyses were adjusted for confounding factors by inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results: In the main analysis, 84 patients who received hydroxychloroquine within 48 hours of admission to hospital (treatment group) were compared with 89 patients who did not receive hydroxychloroquine (control group). Eight additional patients received hydroxychloroquine more than 48 hours after admission. In the weighted analyses, the survival rate without transfer to the intensive care unit at day 21 was 76% in the treatment group and 75% in the control group (weighted hazard ratio 0.9, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 2.1). Overall survival at day 21 was 89% in the treatment group and 91% in the control group (1.2, 0.4 to 3.3). Survival without acute respiratory distress syndrome at day 21 was 69% in the treatment group compared with 74% in the control group (1.3, 0.7 to 2.6). At day 21, 82% of patients in the treatment group had been weaned from oxygen compared with 76% in the control group (weighted risk ratio 1.1, 95% confidence interval 0.9 to 1.3). Eight patients in the treatment group (10%) experienced electrocardiographic modifications that required discontinuation of treatment. Conclusions: Hydroxychloroquine has received worldwide attention as a potential treatment for covid-19 because of positive results from small studies. However, the results of this study do not support its use in patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 who require oxygen.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.m1844

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 30 references

Cited by

See all 566

Metadata

Authors
Mahévas, M., Tran, V.-T., Roumier, M., Chabrol, A., Paule, R., Guillaud, C., Fois, E., Lepeule, R., Szwebel, T.-A., Lescure, F.-X., Schlemmer, F., Matignon, M., Khellaf, M., Crickx, E., Terrier, B., Morbieu, C., Legendre, P., Dang, J., Schoindre, Y., Pawlotsky, J.-M., Michel, M., Perrodeau, E., Carlier, N., Roche, N., de Lastours, V., Ourghanlian, C., Kerneis, S., Ménager, P., Mouthon, L., Audureau, E., Ravaud, P., Godeau, B., Gallien, S., & Costedoat-Chalumeau, N.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2020-05-14
Volume
369
Pages
m1844
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3025972894
Cited by
566
References
30
FWCI
16.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clinical efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with covid-19 pneumonia who require oxygen: observational comparative study using routine care data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.m1844
The paper
Mahévas, M., Tran, V.-T., Roumier, M., Chabrol, A., Paule, R., Guillaud, C., Fois, E., Lepeule, R., Szwebel, T.-A., Lescure, F.-X., Schlemmer, F., Matignon, M., Khellaf, M., Crickx, E., Terrier, B., Morbieu, C., Legendre, P., Dang, J., Schoindre, Y., . . . Costedoat-Chalumeau, N. (2020). Clinical efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with covid-19 pneumonia who require oxygen: observational comparative study using routine care data. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1844

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.