Comparative efficacy and safety of antiviral traditional Chinese medicine injections for viral pneumonia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Viral pneumonia (VP) is becoming a persistent and pervasive burden of disease. Traditional Chinese medicine Injections (TCMIs) have been proved effective in the treatment of patients with VP, which are now widely used in China. The evidence of TCMIs for VP is evolving rapidly. This study aims to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of TCMIs to provide more evidence and sights for the treatment selection of VP. Seven databases were searched from their inception up to 16 March 2022. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are included to compare the efficacy and safety of antiviral TCMIs for the treatment of viral pneumonia. Clinical efficacy and rate of adverse events were considered as primary outcomes. A total of 76 RCTs with eight TCMIs comprising 7925 patients were included in the NMA. According to NMA, Reduning Injection combined with conventional antiviral drugs (CAD) produced superior effects in the effective outcomes and reduced the adverse event incidence rate of VP. This study indicated that TCMIs combined with CAD was more effective and safer than CAD monotherapy and compared different TCMIs therapies, which provided guidance and reference for the selection of clinical treatment medication.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".