Supplementary Data — NaCl reduces COVID-19 risk: real-time meta analysis of 9 studies

@CovidAnalysis, December 2025, Version 6V6
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2+ Chalageri (RCT) -200% 3.00 [0.13-69.5] hosp. 1/20 0/20 Improvement, RR [CI] Treatment Control Chalageri (RCT) 43% 0.57 [0.42-0.78] no recov. 17 (n) 20 (n) Bonn 72% 0.28 [0.06-1.26] viral load 9 (n) 9 (n) Short term viral Bonn 71% 0.29 [0.01-12.1] viral load 30 (n) 30 (n) Short term viral Lin (RCT) 25% 0.75 [0.53-1.07] viral+ 204 (n) 199 (n) Lin (RCT) 21% 0.79 [0.65-0.96] viral+ 204 (n) 199 (n) Tanni (RCT) 75% 0.25 [0.01-6.02] hosp. 0/65 1/33 Tanni (RCT) -10% 1.10 [0.69-1.72] no recov. 65 (n) 33 (n) Tanni (RCT) 52% 0.48 [0.27-0.83] no recov. 65 (n) 33 (n) Tanni (RCT) 33% 0.67 [0.41-1.10] no recov. 65 (n) 33 (n) Tanni (RCT) 2% 0.98 [0.62-1.54] no recov. 65 (n) 33 (n) Tanni (RCT) -9% 1.09 [0.68-1.72] no recov. 65 (n) 33 (n) Kimura (RCT) 29% 0.71 [0.45-1.14] recov. time 14 (n) 17 (n) Delić (RCT) 26% 0.74 [0.53-1.03] death 22/42 37/52 Intubated patients Delić (RCT) 32% 0.68 [0.44-1.04] death 17/42 31/52 Intubated patients Pantazopou.. (RCT) 85% 0.15 [0.01-2.72] ICU 0/24 3/26 Pantazopou.. (RCT) 64% 0.36 [0.08-1.62] oxygen 2/24 6/26 Pantazopou.. (RCT) 51% 0.49 [0.28-0.85] viral+ 9/24 20/26 Liu 6% 0.94 [0.81-1.10] recov. time 20 (n) 20 (n) Liu 9% 0.91 [0.72-1.16] recov. time 20 (n) 20 (n) Liu 3% 0.97 [0.79-1.18] recov. time 20 (n) 20 (n) Liu 1% 0.99 [0.85-1.15] recov. time 20 (n) 20 (n) Liu 3% 0.97 [0.77-1.21] recov. time 20 (n) 20 (n) Liu -0% 1.00 [0.82-1.24] recov. time 20 (n) 20 (n) Liu 24% 0.76 [0.67-0.87] viral time 20 (n) 20 (n) Liu 23% 0.77 [0.63-0.93] viral time 20 (n) 20 (n) Liu 24% 0.76 [0.63-0.91] viral time 20 (n) 20 (n) Yan 35% 0.65 [0.49-0.86] progression 43/147 131/291 Yan 6% 0.94 [0.85-1.05] cases 114/147 239/291 NaCl COVID-19 outcomes c19early.org December 2025 Favors NaCl Favors control
Fig. S1. All outcomes.
Loading..
Fig. S2. Comparison of results for RCTs versus observational studies. For COVID-19 treatments, there is no significant difference between the results of RCTs and observational studies. Observational studies do not systematically over or underestimate efficacy. For high-cost treatments, there is a non-significant trend towards RCTs showing greater efficacy.