SynthesisExpert reviews in molecular medicine2022
A systematic review of outcomes in COVID-19 patients treated with western medicine in combination with traditional Chinese medicine versus western medicine alone.
Synthesis in Expert reviews in molecular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The anti-COVID-19 drug nirmatrelvir crosses the blood‒brain barrier and exhibits herb-drug pharmacokinetic interactions withHeliyon · 2024Article
- Jin-Zhen oral liquid for pediatric coronavirus disease (COVID-19): A randomly controlled, open-label, and non-inferiority trial at multiple clinical centers.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- The Efficacy and Safety of Shashen-Maidong Decoction Combined with Western Medicine in the Treatment of Omicron Infected Individuals Over 85 Years Old: A Retrospective Study.Infection and drug resistance · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in late 2019, it has evolved into a global pandemic that has become a substantial public health concern. COVID-19 is still causing a large number of deaths in several countries around the world because of the lack of effective treatment.
aimTo systematically compare the outcomes of COVID-19 patients treated with integrated Chinese with western (ICW) medicine versus western medicine (WM) alone by pooling the data of published literature, and to determine if ICW treatment of COVID-19 patients has better clinical outcomes.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), China Clinical Trial Registry, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang databases using keywords related to COVID-19, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and treatment effect. The search deadline was until 10 February 2021. All randomised controlled (RC) and non-randomised controlled (NRC) clinical trials of the ICW or WM treatment of COVID-19 patients were included. We analysed the effective rate, cure rate, exacerbation rate, turning negative rate of viral nucleic acid, remission rate and remission time of symptoms such as fever, cough, feebleness and chest computed tomography (CT) and the number of white blood cells (WBCs) and lymphocytes (LYM) of the COVID-19 patients. For qualitative and quantitative data, the ratio risk (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as the indexes of the statistical analysis, respectively. RevMan 5.4 was used to perform meta-analyses and forest plots with the fixed-effects and random-effects models. Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2.0) was used to assess the risk of bias in the included RC trials, whereas risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions was used to assess the risk of bias in NRC trials.
resultsThis research includes 16 studies with 1645 valid confirmed COVID-19 patients, among which 895 patients of the experimental group received ICW treatment whereas 750 patients of the control group received WM treatment. The outcomes were assessed in three aspects, that is, overall indicator, symptoms indicator and blood indicator, respectively, and the results showed that the ICW group had better treatment outcomes compared with the WM. Among the overall indicators, the ICW group displayed a higher effective rate (RR = 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.16-1.33), clinical cure rate (RR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.03-1.56) and lower exacerbation rate (RR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.25-0.52), but no statistical difference was observed in the turning negative rate of viral nucleic acid (RR = 1.20, 95% CI: 0.78-1.85). Among the symptom indicators, the ICW group had a higher fever remission rate (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.09-1.42), less fever remission time (WMD = -1.49, 95% CI: -1.85 to -1.12), a higher cough remission rate (RR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.10-1.73) and a feebleness remission rate (RR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.18-1.77), less cough remission time (WMD = -1.61, 95% CI: -2.35 to -0.87) and feebleness remission time (WMD = -1.50, 95% CI: -2.38 to -0.61) and better improvement in chest CT (RR = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.11-1.28). For blood indicator, the number of WBCs in the blood of patients of ICW group rebounded significantly (WMD = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.16-0.54), and the recovery of LYM in the blood was more obvious (WMD = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.06-0.40).
conclusionThe results of this study show that the outcomes in COVID-19 patients treated by the ICW is better than those treated by the WM treatment alone, suggesting that WM and TCM can be complementary in the treatment of COVID-19.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.