MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163451826

Analysis of the effectiveness of traditional Chinese medicine in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review

2021· review· en· W3163451826 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPlant-based Medicinal Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineData extractionChecklistMEDLINETraditional Chinese medicineInclusion and exclusion criteriaAlternative medicineDiseaseCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)AcupuncturePsychological interventionScopusTraditional medicineIntensive care medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)PathologyPsychologyPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19, a disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, was first identified in China. The clinical picture of COVID-19 varies from mild to severe and the mortality of critically ill patients is high. To date, no specific treatment or with high rates of effectiveness has been discovered for the disease. In contrast, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), throughout history, has played an important role in the treatment of various infectious and epidemic diseases. TCM can provide an effective and personalized treatment, adjusting it specifically for each patient based on the severity of the case. OBJECTIVES: To analyze the effectiveness of TCM in the treatment of COVID-19 and to present information about changes in the clinical condition of sick individuals. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The work is characterized as a systematic review and was carried out based on the acronym PECOS. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established, with characteristics of the studies to be selected. The search for the articles took place in Pubmed, Science Direct, Scopus and Web of Science databases. To manage the studies found, the StArt tool, a systematic review manager, and Zotero, a reference management software, were used. The studies included in the review went through a quality and risk of bias analysis process, based on the Newcastle Ottawa checklist and proceeded to data extraction. RESULTS: TCM interventions have proven to be beneficial in the treatment for COVID-19, reducing severe symptoms of patients. Herbal formulas are the main methods described that are more effective, in addition to decoction, acupuncture and other therapies characteristic of TCM, which were widely used based on the differentiation of the patient's clinical condition. However, it has been reported that some herbs used in TCM contain nephrotoxins and mutagens and that the toxicological characteristics of most Chinese herbal medicines have not yet been fully understood. Therefore, the safety of using herbal medicines and other TCM techniques used to treat emerging coronavirus infections should be carefully assessed. CONCLUSION: MTC has accumulated thousands of years of experience in the treatment of diseases and is a complementary alternative for the treatment of COVID-19. While the potential for resolution and effectiveness is great, you need to be aware of the challenges and limitations faced by these tools. Even so, TCM practices must be considered given the urgency to treat the growing number of patients infected with the new coronavirus and the viability of TCM experiences.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.196
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlant-based Medicinal ResearchFrench-language works237,207