Data Extraction, quality assessment and risk of bias
Data on study year, study design, sample size, place, age, gender, primary and secondary outcome were extracted on a standard excel sheet from the eligible articles. The primary outcomes of interest were( 1) SARS-COV-2 RNA error rate. (2) Time for clearance SARS-COV-2 or undetectable SARS-COV-2 in the nasopharyngeal sample. (3) Mean change in SARS-COV-2 from baseline in nasopharyngeal sample. The secondary outcomes of interest are 20 adverse events which include any AEs, serious AEs, investigations, cardiac disorders, blood and lymphatic disorders, general administration site disorders, GI disorders, respiratory AE, renal AE, vascular AE, skin AE, nervous system AE, psych AE, MSK AE, eye AE, injury and poisoning, infection and infestation, metabolism and nutrition, drug discontinuation and death,
Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias 2.0 (ROB 2.0) tool was used to assess the risk of bias in RCTs across five domains (randomization, intended intervention, missing data, outcome measurement, and reported results) [12]. Data extraction and quality assessment was carried out by two researchers (MS and SO) independently and any discrepancies were resolved after discussion.
The quality of evidence was graded as very low, low, moderate, or high using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment tool on the basis of risk of bias, publication bias, imprecision, inconsistency, and indirectness.