MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202144878 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000027372

Traditional Chinese medicine as an adjunctive therapy for mild and common COVID-19

2021· review· en· W3202144878 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiaozheng Wu, Wen Li, Zhong Qin, Lei Xue, Gao Huang, Zhenliang Luo, Yunzhi Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmacological Effects of Natural Compounds
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialOdds ratioMEDLINEMeta-analysisConfidence intervalTraditional Chinese medicinePublication biasInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in many countries is still very serious. At present, there is no specific and effective drug for this disease. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has played a great role in fighting against COVID-19. However, their effectiveness and safety are still obscure and deserve further investigation. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TCM assisted in conventional treatment in the treatment of mild and common COVID-19. METHODS: PubMed, EMbase, MEDLINE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, WANFANG DATA, and VIP Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials of TCM assisted in conventional treatment. The RCT research quality was evaluated by Cochrane 5.1.0 bias risk scale and the non-randomized controlled trial research quality was evaluated by Newcastle Ottawa scale, and the statistical analysis was conducted by Revman 5.3 and R software. The bias and sensitivity of the statistical results were analyzed by STATA 14.0. Registration number: CRD42020210619. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included with 7 RCT studies and 8 retrospective cohort studies, involving a total of 1623 patients. Compared with the control group, TCM can improve the main index clinical effective rate (odds ratio [OR] = 2.64, 95% Confidence interval (CI) [1.94,3.59], P < .00001). The results of Begg test (Pr > z = 0.266) and sensitivity analysis showed that the results were relatively stable. Toujie Quwen (OR = 4.9, 95%CI [1.9,14.0]), Shufeng Jiedu (OR = 2.9, 95%CI [1.5,5.7]), and Lianhua Qingwen (OR = 2.4, 95%CI [1.6,3.6]) were with the best. It can also improve the main clinical symptoms (fever, cough, fatigue, and the regression time of the 3 symptoms), severe conversion rate, and computed tomography improvement rate. Its safety was not significantly compared with conventional treatment. However, in terms of safety of a single TCM, Shufeng Jiedu (OR = -0.86, 95%CI [-1.89,0.09]) and Lianhua Qingwen (OR = -0.49, 95%CI[-0.94,-0.05]) were lower than those of conventional treatment. CONCLUSION: TCM as an adjuvant therapy combined with conventional treatment has good curative effect on mild and common type of COVID-19 patients. Its advantages lie in clinical efficacy and improvement of symptom group, and can prevent patients from transforming to severe disease. In terms of clinical efficacy and safety, Shufeng Jiedu and Lianhua Qingwen have obvious advantages, which are worthy of clinical promotion.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.473
GPT teacher head0.597
Teacher spread0.124 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicPharmacological Effects of Natural CompoundsFrench-language works237,207