Chinese herbal medicine for COVID-19: Current evidence with systematic review and meta-analysis

作     者：Arthur Yin Fan Sherman Gu Sarah Faggert Alemi Research Group for Evidence-based Chinese Medicine Arthur Yin Fan;Sherman Gu;Sarah Faggert Alemi;Research Group for Evidence-based Chinese Medicine

作者机构：American ICM Association(ATCMA).ViennaVA 22182USA McLean Center for Complementary and Alternative MedicinePLCViennVA 22182.USA Federation of Chinese Medicine 8 Acupuncture Societies of Australia(FCMA)Victoria 3011Australia Knox Chinese Healing 8 MyotherapyWantima SouthVictoria 3152Australia East Roots WellnessPLCMcleanVA 22101USA 

出 版 物：《Journal of Integrative Medicine》 (结合医学学报（英文版）)

年 卷 期：2020年第18卷第5期

页      面：385-394页

核心收录：

学科分类：100506[医学-中医内科学] 1006[医学-中西医结合] 1005[医学-中医学] 1002[医学-临床医学] 10[医学] 100602[医学-中西医结合临床] 

主　　题：Chinese herbal medicine Traditional Chinese medicine COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 Systematic review Meta-analysis 

摘      要：Background: There is currently no drug or therapy that cures COVID-19, a highly contagious and life-threatening ***: This systematic review and meta-analysis summarized contemporary studies that report the use of Chinese herbal medicine(CHM) to treat *** strategy: Six electronic databases(PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, Wanfang Data and China National Knowledge Infrastructure) were searched from their beginning to May 15, 2020 with the following search terms: traditional Chinese medicine, Chinese medicine,Chinese herbal medicine, COVID-19, new coronavirus pneumonia, SARS-CoV-2, and randomized controlled *** criteria: Randomized controlled trials(RCTs) from peer-reviewed journals and non-reviewed publications were included. Further, included RCTs had a control group that was given standard care(SC;such as conventional Western medicine treatments or routine medical care), and a treatment group that was given SC plus *** extraction and analysis: Two evaluators screened and collected literature independently;information on participants, study design, interventions, follow-up and adverse events were extracted, and risk of bias was assessed. The primary outcomes included scores that represented changes in symptoms and signs over the course of treatment. Secondary outcomes included the level of inflammatory markers, improvement of pneumonia confirmed by computed tomography(CT), and adverse events. Dichotomous data were expressed as risk ratio or hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval(CI);where time-to-event analysis was used, outcomes were expressed as odds ratio with 95% CI. Continuous data were expressed as difference in means(MD) with 95% CI, and standardized mean difference(SMD) was used when different outcome scales were ***: Seven original studies, comprising a total of 732 adults, were included in this *** to SC alone, CHM plus SC had a superior effect on the