Effect of Astragalus injection treatment for viral myocarditis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Astragalus injection has been utilized in traditional Chinese medicine to treat a variety of diseases. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of Astragalus injection in the treatment of viral myocarditis. METHODS: English databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE, and Chinese databases of Sino Med, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the VIP Information Resource Integration Service Platform, and Wanfang Data Information Site, were searched from their inception until May 1, 2024. The outcome measures of this study included the effectiveness rate, creatine kinase (CK), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), creatine kinase Isoenzyme (CK-MB), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), cardiac troponin I (cTnI), and electrocardiogram (ECG). RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included in this analysis, comprising a total of 2793 patients. Meta-analyses indicated that, compared to standard treatment alone, the Astragalus injection group demonstrated significant advantages, achieving an effectiveness rate of 92.79% (1094 cases). In contrast, the control group, which included 1108 cases, had an effectiveness rate of 77.71% (861 cases). Additionally, the Astragalus injection group exhibited the following benefits for patients affected by viral myocarditis: decreasing ∆AST [weighted mean difference (WMD) = - 14.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) (- 24.17, - 4.30), P < 0.05]; ∆CK [weighted mean difference (WMD) = - 34.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) (- 48.03, - 21.65), P < 0.05], lowering ∆CK-MB [WMD = - 7.64, 95% CI (- 9.30, - 5.99), P < 0.001], ∆cTnl [WMD = - 0.18, 95% CI (- 0.27, - 0.10), P < 0.001], ∆LDH [WMD = -41.93, 95% CI (- 55.97, - 27.90), P < 0.05], and ∆cTnI [WMD = - 0.18, 95% CI (- 0.28, - 0.08), P < 0.05]. CONCLUSION: Astragalus injection may have a therapeutic effect in patients with viral myocarditis by reducing levels of AST, CK, CK-MB, LDH, and cTnI, improving ECG results, and increasing the overall effectiveness rate for those affected by this condition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study registered with PROSPERO before conducting the systematic review. The registration number is CRD42021239660.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".