MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306731796 · doi:10.1002/ptr.7643

Efficacy and safety of integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine against <scp>COVID</scp>‐19: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2022· review· en· W4306731796 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jieqin Zhuang, Dai Xingzhen, Weizhang Zhang, Xue Fu, Guoxiong Zhang, Jing Zeng, Shuai Zhao, Bojun Chen

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytotherapy Research · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisInternal medicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Publication biasRelative riskTraditional medicineConfidence intervalDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Although plenty of clinical trials have confirmed the efficacy and safety of integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine (ITCWM) against COVID‐19, the role of ITCWM remains controversial. So we conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of published studies in eight major databases that report the outcomes of interest in COVID‐19 patients receiving ITCWM. RevMan5.4 software was used for meta‐analysis, while the quality of RCTs was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the retrospective studies were assessed by Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Eventually, a total of 53 studies with 5425 COVID‐19 patients was identified. The meta‐analysis results showed that ITCWM was significantly better than western medicine treatment (WMT) alone in the percentage of cases changing to severe/critical [ RR = 0.40, 95%CI (0.33, 0.49), p &lt; .00001, I 2 = 10%], overall clinical effectiveness [ RR = 1.26, 95% CI (1.18, 1.35), p &lt; .00001, I 2 = 50%], time to defervescencer [ MD = −1.45, 95% CI (−1.82, −1.07), p &lt; .00001, I 2 = 83%], disappearing time of cough [ MD = −2.11, 95% CI (−2.98, −1.25), p &lt; .00001, I 2 = 93%], time of RT‐PCR negativity [MD = −3.35, 95% CI (−4.74, −1.95), p &lt; .00001, I 2 = 92%], length of hospital stay [ MD = −4.05, 95% CI (−5.24, −2.85), p &lt; .00001, I 2 = 91%], improvement in CT scan [ RR = 1.22, 95% CI (1.17, 1.28), p &lt; .00001, I 2 = 46%], TCM syndrome score [ MD = −3.95, 95% CI (−5.07, −2.82), p &lt; .00001, I 2 = 92%], disappearance rate of fever [ RR = 1.23, 95% CI (1.10, 1.38), p &lt; .00001, I 2 = 85%], disappearance rate of cough [ RR = 1.43, 95% CI (1.25, 1.63), p &lt; .00001, I 2 = 60%], level of CRP [ MD = −9.23, 95% CI (−10.94, −7.52), p &lt; .00001, I 2 = 97%], and WBC [ MD = −9.23, 95% CI (−10.94, −7.52), p &lt; .00001, I 2 = 97%]. There is no significant difference between ITCWM and WMT in the adverse reaction rate [ RR = 0.85, 95% CI(0.71, 1.03), p = .10, I 2 = 25%]. Our results showed evidence of clinical efficacy and safety benefit in COVID‐19 patients treated with ITCWM. In spite of some limitations, the rapidly developing global pandemic warrants further high‐quality and multicenter clinical studies to confirm the contribution of ITCWM.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.326
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytotherapy ResearchSame topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207