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

@CovidAnalysis, October 2026, Version 6V6 (V1 2025)
c19early.org
October 2026

NaCl COVID-19 outcomes

StudyImprovementRR · 95% CIOutcomeTreatmentControlRelative Risk
Chalageri (RCT)−200%3.00 · 0.13–69.52hosp.1/200/20 Chalageri (RCT)43%0.57 · 0.42–0.78no recov.17 (n)20 (n) Bonn72%0.28 · 0.06–1.26viral load9 (n)9 (n)Short term viral Bonn71%0.29 · 0.01–12.07viral load30 (n)30 (n)Short term viral Lin (RCT)25%0.75 · 0.53–1.07viral+204 (n)199 (n) Lin (RCT)21%0.79 · 0.65–0.96viral+204 (n)199 (n) Tanni (RCT)75%0.25 · 0.01–6.02hosp.0/651/33 Tanni (RCT)−10%1.10 · 0.69–1.72no recov.65 (n)33 (n) Tanni (RCT)52%0.48 · 0.27–0.83no recov.65 (n)33 (n) Tanni (RCT)33%0.67 · 0.41–1.10no recov.65 (n)33 (n) Tanni (RCT)2%0.98 · 0.62–1.54no recov.65 (n)33 (n) Tanni (RCT)−9%1.09 · 0.68–1.72no recov.65 (n)33 (n) Kimura (RCT)29%0.71 · 0.45–1.14recov. time14 (n)17 (n) Delić (RCT)26%0.74 · 0.53–1.03death22/4237/52Intubated patients Delić (RCT)32%0.68 · 0.44–1.04death17/4231/52Intubated patients Pantazopou.. (RCT)85%0.15 · 0.01–2.72ICU0/243/26 Pantazopou.. (RCT)64%0.36 · 0.08–1.62oxygen2/246/26 Pantazopou.. (RCT)51%0.49 · 0.28–0.85viral+9/2420/26 Liu6%0.94 · 0.81–1.10recov. time20 (n)20 (n) Liu9%0.91 · 0.72–1.16recov. time20 (n)20 (n) Liu3%0.97 · 0.79–1.18recov. time20 (n)20 (n) Liu1%0.99 · 0.85–1.15recov. time20 (n)20 (n) Liu3%0.97 · 0.77–1.21recov. time20 (n)20 (n) Liu0%1.00 · 0.82–1.24recov. time20 (n)20 (n) Liu24%0.76 · 0.67–0.87viral time20 (n)20 (n) Liu23%0.77 · 0.63–0.93viral time20 (n)20 (n) Liu24%0.76 · 0.63–0.91viral time20 (n)20 (n) Yan35%0.65 · 0.49–0.86progression43/147131/291 Yan6%0.94 · 0.85–1.05cases114/147239/291
00.511.52+
Rotate screen for more detailsIncrease width for more details
← NaCl
reduces riskNaCl
increases risk →
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.