Dataset Information

PROSPERO's systematic review protocols of traditional Chinese medicine for COVID-19: An overview.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A large number of protocols for Systematic Reviews (SR) of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). This study aimed to analyze the innovativeness and rigorousness of the SR protocols and make recommendations for the design and implementation of future SRs on TCM for COVID-19. This effort is likely to enhance the value of the produced information and prevent the futility of the research.

Methods

PROSPERO was searched comprehensively for identifying SRs of TCM for COVID-19 from the inception of the database to August 2020. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted the data, and cross-checked the retrieved information for consistency. The following details were recorded: database, registration time, organizations, types of research included, participants, interventions, and outcome measures. All extracted data were analyzed by an overview. The "P - participants, I - interventions, C - controls, and O - outcomes (PICO)" included in the protocols were compared for similarity. The outcomes of the included SR protocols were compared with the newly published Core Outcome Sets (COSs).

Results

A total of 80 protocols of SR related to TCM for COVID-19 were obtained after a primary search, and finally 71 protocols were included. The majority of the protocols were from China. Thirty-two organizations participated in the protocol registrations, including 11 hospitals and 21 universities/colleges. However, some protocols were not innovative or rigorous enough, as the PICO of some protocols were similar and non-specific, and the searched literature was incomprehensive. In addition, COS is not commonly adopted.

Conclusions

Registering a protocol of SR is an effective way to ensure the usefulness of the produced information, and to avoid the duplication of research and the wastage of resources. In future SR protocols, it is important to focus on and solve the methodological problems such as non-specific PICO, incomprehensive literature retrieval, and improper outcome measures.

SUBMITTER: Hu H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8425636 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction: Until now, there is no clinically approved specific medicine to treat COVID-19. Prior systematic reviews (SRs) have shown that traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) reduces the number of patients with severe disease and time to fever clearance, promotes clinical effectiveness, and improves chest images and the negativity rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid test. Few SRs arrived at a definitive conclusion, and more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were published. We conducted this study to summarize the latest evidence of TCM in COVID-19. Methods: Eight online databases were searched from December 2019 to July 2020, updated to March 2021. Only RCTs evaluating the clinical efficacy and safety of TCM in the treatment of COVID-19 were included. Primary outcomes were clinical cure and the negativity of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test. Secondary outcomes included clinical deterioration, ARDS, mechanical ventilation, death, time to fever clearance, duration of hospitalization, and chest imaging improvement. Safety outcomes included adverse events and serious adverse events during treatment. Two reviewers selected the included articles, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data independently and in duplicate. Results: A total of 25 RCTs involving 2222 participants were selected in the systematic review, and seven RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that TCM plus routine treatment was significantly better than routine treatment alone in clinical cure (risk ratio [RR] = 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.04, 1.38], P = 0.01) and chest image improvement (RR = 1.22, 95% CI [1.07, 1.39], P = 0.01) and could reduce clinical deterioration (RR = 0.39, 95% CI [0.18, 0.86], P = 0.02), ARDS (RR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.11, 0.69], P = 0.01), mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.30, 95% CI [0.12, 0.77], P = 0.01), or death rate (RR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.09, 0.84], P = 0.02). No significant difference between TCM and routine treatment in the negativity of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test (RR = 1.08, 95% CI [0.94, 1.23], P = 0.29) was observed. Finally, there was no overall significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. The summary of evidence showed moderate confidence of a benefit of 11.8% in clinical cure and 14.0% in chest image improvement and a reduction of 5.9% in clinical deterioration, 25.4% in ARDS, 18.3% in mechanical ventilation, and 4.5% in death with TCM plus routine treatment compared to routine treatment alone in patients with COVID-19. A low confidence of a benefit of 5.4% in the negativity of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test was also observed. Conclusions: Synethized evidence of 21 outcomes in 8 RCTs showed moderate certainty that TCM treatment plus routine treatment may promote a clinical cure and chest image improvement compared to routine treatment alone while reducing clinical deterioration, development of ARDS, use of mechanical ventilation, and death in patients with COVID-19. TCM treatment plus routine treatment may not promote the negativity of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test compared to routine treatment alone. TCM treatment was found to be safe for patients with COVID-19.

Project description:Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has already spread around the world. The modality of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) combined with Western medicine (WM) approaches is being used to treat COVID-19 patients in China. Several systematic reviews (SRs) are available highlighting the efficacy and safety of TCM combined with WM approaches in COVID-19 patients. However, their evidence quality is not completely validated. Purpose: We aimed to assess the methodological quality and the risk of bias of the included SRs, assess the evidence quality of outcomes, and present their trends and gaps using the evidence mapping method. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, CBM, and Wanfang Data were searched from inception until March 2021 to identify SRs pertaining to the field of TCM combined with WM approaches for COVID-19. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2), the risk of bias of the included SRs was assessed with the Risk of Bias in Systematic Review (ROBIS) tool, and the evidence quality of outcomes was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Results: In total, 23 SRs were found eligible. Twenty-one were rated of moderate confidence by AMSTAR 2, while 12 were rated at low risk using the ROBIS tool. In addition, most outcomes were graded as having moderate quality using the GRADE system. We found that the combined use of TCM and WM approaches could improve the CT recovery rate, effective rate, viral nucleic acid negative conversion rate, and the disappearance rate of fever, cough, and shortness of breath. Also, these approaches could decrease the conversion rate from mild to critical, white blood cell counts, and lymphocyte counts and shorten the time to viral assay conversion and the length of hospital stay. Conclusion: TCM combined with WM approaches had advantages in efficacy, laboratory, and clinical symptom outcomes of COVID-19, but the methodological deficiencies of SRs should be taken into consideration. Therefore, to better guide clinical practice in the future, the methodological quality of SRs should still be improved, and high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies should also be carried out.

Project description:Background: Integrated Chinese and Western medicine (integrated medicine) is routinely used in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China. In this study, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy of integrated medicine therapy for patients with COVID-19. Methods: In this meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, SinoMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chongqing VIP (CQVIP), and Wanfang databases from inception to April 12, 2021, to identify RCTs of integrated medicine in the treatment of COVID-19. The quality of RCTs was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RevMan v5.3 and Stata software packages were used for statistical analysis. Results: Nineteen RCTs involving 1,853 patients met our inclusion criteria. Compared with patients treated by conventional Western medicine (CWM), patients treated by integrated medicine have a higher overall effective rate [RR = 1.17, 95% CI: (1.10, 1.26), p < 0.00001], fever disappearance rate [RR = 1.25, 95% CI: (1.04, 1.50), p = 0.02], fatigue disappearance rate [RR = 1.28, 95% CI: (1.00, 1.63), p = 0.05], and chest CT improvement rate [RR = 1.24, 95% CI: (1.14, 1.34), p < 00001]. Beneficial effects of the integrated medicine therapy were also seen in C-reactive protein (CRP) level [WMD = -4.14, 95% CI: (-6.38, -1.91), p = 0.0003] and white blood cell (WBC) count [WMD = 0.35, 95% CI: (0.11, 0.58), p = 0.004]. Subgroup analyses showed that, when the treatment time is <2 weeks, the effect of integrated medicine treatment is more obvious in improving the overall effective rate, clinical symptoms (fever, fatigue, and cough), the CRP level, and WBC count compared with that of the CWM treatment. For patients with severe and non-severe COVID-19, integrated medicine is more effective in improving fever and cough symptoms and WBC count than using CWM alone. Conclusion: The results of the current meta-analysis suggested that the integrated medicine can improve the clinical symptoms, chest CT and infection indicators of COVID-19 patients. Even if the treatment time is <2 weeks, the effect of integrated medicine in improving symptoms is more obvious compared with the treatment of CWM. However, the results should be interpreted cautiously due to the heterogeneity among the studies.