Independent · non-commercial · publishes on a quarterly cycle|Current cycle 2026 Q3
Compound Evidence InstituteEvidence synthesis · established 2023Graded assessments of compounds, trials, methods and supply
Document set current to 30 July 2026
Evidence synthesis · §3

Thymic peptides in infection and immune support — included and excluded studies

The included-studies table with extracted data, the exclusions with reasons, and the risk-of-bias judgements.

Document identifier
CEI-ES-033/3
Series
Evidence synthesis
Version
1.1
Published
17 Aug 2024
Last reviewed
17 Jun 2025
Next review
17 Dec 2026
Identifier
10.71829/cei.syn.33
Certainty
Low
Cycle
2024 Q3
Review type
Intervention review
Search executed
17 May 2024

§3Included and excluded studies

Every study contributing to this review is listed below with the data extracted from it. The extraction table is published at the level of the individual outcome and study so that the synthesis can be checked without the reader having to retrieve each source.

§3.1Included studies

Table 4. Included studies with the characteristics extracted from each.

StudyDesignRandomisedDurationAnchor outcome as reportedYear
TA1-SEPSIS-CNThymosin alpha-1Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled36128 daysA mortality difference reported in a single-country trial that has not been replicated internationally2013
TA1-HCV-1Thymosin alpha-1Randomised, double-blind, active-controlled48 weeksAn adjunctive effect in combination regimens now superseded by direct-acting antivirals2004
TA1-HBV-1Thymosin alpha-1Randomised, double-blind, active-controlled52 weeksA modest effect relative to interferon comparators; approved for this indication in several jurisdictions2001
TA1-VACCINE-ELDERLYThymosin alpha-1Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled8 weeksHigher antibody titres reported; clinical outcomes were not assessed1998
THYMALIN-RU-1ThymalinObservationalNot recordedThe Institute has not obtained a retrievable protocol or analysis plan and grades claims for this compound very low certainty
5 included studies. Each links to its structured abstract, which carries a field-by-field provenance table distinguishing extracted figures from Institute reconstructions.

Contributing participants across studies reporting a randomised total: 361. Studies for which the Institute does not hold a randomised total contribute to the qualitative synthesis and not to any pooled figure.

§3.2Excluded at full text, with reasons

Table 5. Reports excluded at full text, by reason. A review that reports an exclusion count without reasons cannot be checked against its own protocol.

Reason for exclusionReports
Not a randomised comparison5
Population outside the review question4
Intervention outside the review question3
Comparator not eligible3
No eligible outcome reported6
Duplicate report of an included study1
Conference abstract without extractable data3
Retracted or subject to an expression of concern3
23 reports excluded at full text in total.

§3.3Risk of bias across included studies

Table 6. Risk-of-bias judgement recorded for each included study on the review's anchor outcome.

StudyRisk of biasInconsistencyIndirectnessImprecisionPublication bias
TA1-SEPSIS-CNSomeLowLowLowLow
TA1-HCV-1LowLowLowLowSome
TA1-HBV-1SomeLowLowLowLow
TA1-VACCINE-ELDERLYSomeLowLowLowLow
THYMALIN-RU-1LowLowLowSomeSome
Judgements are the Institute's own and are recorded per outcome. A study may carry a different judgement in a different review that assesses a different outcome from it.
Nothing published by the Institute is medical advice, a diagnosis, a prescription, a treatment recommendation or a purchasing recommendation. Compounds supplied for research use are not approved for human or veterinary use in any jurisdiction, and a favourable analytical assessment of a supplier is not a statement that any product is safe or effective. The Institute publishes certainty ratings and never recommendations. No telephone number, messaging handle or ordering channel appears anywhere on this site.