SynthesisExplore (New York, N.Y.)
The use of complementary and traditional medicine for the treatment of patients with COVID-19: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Explore (New York, N.Y.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Triple-blind randomized controlled trial on the effects of turmeric versus ginger on inflammatory biomarkers in patients with COVID-19.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Measurement of Spiritual Fitness Among Healthcare Professionals in Türkiye: Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Version of the SOCOM Spiritual Fitness Scale.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
- Perceptions, health practices, and wildlife interactions among the Kaleung ethnic group in Sakon Nakhon, Thailand: implications for COVID-19 and zoonotic disease prevention.BMC public health · 2026Article
- The Role of Traditional Chinese Medicine and Chinese Pharmacopoeia in the Evaluation and Treatment of COVID-19.Current pharmaceutical design · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the use and effectiveness of non-pharmacological therapies as part of the treatment of COVID-19 and its complications, either combined or not with the usual treatment.
methodsA systematic review was conducted between August and October 2021 using PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL and Web of Science databases. From a total of 204 articles identified, 33 were included in the final sample (15 clinical trials and 18 quasi-experimental studies). The methodological evaluation was carried out using STROBE and CONSORT guidelines.
resultsThere is a growing literature on the use of CAM for COVID-19. Most studies have shown positive findings, particularly for the use of TCM, other herbal therapies and acupuncture. Nevertheless, most studies were carried out in Asia and relied on quasi-experimental designs. The current evidence is available for physical outcomes (mortality rate, pneumonia resolution and other symptoms, negative PCR test, and hospitalization and ICU admissions) and for mental health outcomes.
conclusionDespite a positive role of CAM on COVID-19 outcomes, the evidence is still mostly based on quasi-experimental studies. More robust clinical trials are needed in order to generate better evidence in this area.
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.