Dataset Information

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions for COVID-19: An overview of systematic reviews.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Since the beginning of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, various complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) have been used in clinical practice. In this overview, we summarized the evidence for CAM interventions in the treatment of COVID-19 patients.

Methods

For this overview, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2021. Systematic reviews (SRs) on the effectiveness and safety of CAM interventions for COVID-19 patients were located, and the MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) was used to evaluate the reporting quality of the included SRs. Keywords including COVID-19 and CAM interventions were used for locating SRs. For evidence mapping, we created a two-dimensional bubble plot that included the width and strength of the evidence for each CAM intervention and specific outcome.

Results

In this overview, we identified 24 SRs (21 for Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) medications, two for vitamin D and one for home-based activity). From the included SRs, TCM herbal medications were reported to show good results in decreasing the rate of disease progression (relative risk (RR) 0.30, 95% confidence intervals (CI) [0.20, 0.44]), time to the resolution of fever (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.98, 95% CI [-1.78, -0.17]) and rate of progression to severe COVID-19 cases (RR 0.34, 95% CI [0.18, 0.65]), but the evidence for other interventions did not show effectiveness with certainty. Gastric disturbance was a major adverse event of TCM medications.

Conclusion

There is evidence that TCM medications are effective in the symptom management of COVID-19 patients. However, evidence for the effectiveness of most CAM interventions still needs evaluation.

SUBMITTER: Jeon SR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8918082 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions for COVID-19: An overview of systematic reviews.

Jeon Sae-Rom SR Kang Jung Won JW Ang Lin L Lee Hye Won HW Lee Myeong Soo MS Kim Tae-Hun TH

Integrative medicine research 20220313 3

<h4>Background</h4>Since the beginning of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, various complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) have been used in clinical practice. In this overview, we summarized the evidence for CAM interventions in the treatment of COVID-19 patients.<h4>Methods</h4>For this overview, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2021. Systematic reviews (SRs) on the effectiveness and safety of CAM interventions for COVID-19 pat ...[more]

PMID: 35308033

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOut-of-pocket expenditures of over 34 billion dollars per year in the US are an apparent testament to a widely held belief that complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies have benefits that outweigh their costs. However, regardless of public opinion, there is often little more than anecdotal evidence on the health and economic implications of CAM therapies. The objectives of this study are to present an overview of economic evaluation and to expand upon a previous review to examine the current scope and quality of CAM economic evaluations.MethodsThe data sources used were Medline, AMED, Alt-HealthWatch, and the Complementary and Alternative Medicine Citation Index; January 1999 to October 2004. Papers that reported original data on specific CAM therapies from any form of standard economic analysis were included. Full economic evaluations were subjected to two types of quality review. The first was a 35-item checklist for reporting quality, and the second was a set of four criteria for study quality (randomization, prospective collection of economic data, comparison to usual care, and no blinding).ResultsA total of 56 economic evaluations (39 full evaluations) of CAM were found covering a range of therapies applied to a variety of conditions. The reporting quality of the full evaluations was poor for certain items, but was comparable to the quality found by systematic reviews of economic evaluations in conventional medicine. Regarding study quality, 14 (36%) studies were found to meet all four criteria. These exemplary studies indicate CAM therapies that may be considered cost-effective compared to usual care for various conditions: acupuncture for migraine, manual therapy for neck pain, spa therapy for Parkinson's, self-administered stress management for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, pre- and post-operative oral nutritional supplementation for lower gastrointestinal tract surgery, biofeedback for patients with "functional" disorders (eg, irritable bowel syndrome), and guided imagery, relaxation therapy, and potassium-rich diet for cardiac patients.ConclusionWhereas the number and quality of economic evaluations of CAM have increased in recent years and more CAM therapies have been shown to be of good value, the majority of CAM therapies still remain to be evaluated.

Project description:BackgroundNavigating the rapidly growing body of scientific literature on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is challenging, and ongoing critical appraisal of this output is essential. We aimed to summarize and critically appraise systematic reviews of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in humans that were available at the beginning of the pandemic.MethodsNine databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Sciences, PDQ-Evidence, WHO's Global Research, LILACS, and Epistemonikos) were searched from December 1, 2019, to March 24, 2020. Systematic reviews analyzing primary studies of COVID-19 were included. Two authors independently undertook screening, selection, extraction (data on clinical symptoms, prevalence, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, diagnostic test assessment, laboratory, and radiological findings), and quality assessment (AMSTAR 2). A meta-analysis was performed of the prevalence of clinical outcomes.ResultsEighteen systematic reviews were included; one was empty (did not identify any relevant study). Using AMSTAR 2, confidence in the results of all 18 reviews was rated as "critically low". Identified symptoms of COVID-19 were (range values of point estimates): fever (82-95%), cough with or without sputum (58-72%), dyspnea (26-59%), myalgia or muscle fatigue (29-51%), sore throat (10-13%), headache (8-12%) and gastrointestinal complaints (5-9%). Severe symptoms were more common in men. Elevated C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase, and slightly elevated aspartate and alanine aminotransferase, were commonly described. Thrombocytopenia and elevated levels of procalcitonin and cardiac troponin I were associated with severe disease. A frequent finding on chest imaging was uni- or bilateral multilobar ground-glass opacity. A single review investigated the impact of medication (chloroquine) but found no verifiable clinical data. All-cause mortality ranged from 0.3 to 13.9%.ConclusionsIn this overview of systematic reviews, we analyzed evidence from the first 18 systematic reviews that were published after the emergence of COVID-19. However, confidence in the results of all reviews was "critically low". Thus, systematic reviews that were published early on in the pandemic were of questionable usefulness. Even during public health emergencies, studies and systematic reviews should adhere to established methodological standards.

Project description:ObjectivesAs clinical practice guidelines vary widely in their search strategies and recommendations of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for depression, this overview aimed at systematically summarising the level 1 evidence on CAM for patients with a clinical diagnosis of depression.MethodsPubMed, PsycInfo and Central were searched for meta-analyses of randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) until 30 June 2018. Outcomes included depression severity, response, remission, relapse and adverse events. The quality of evidence was assessed according to Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) considering the methodological quality of the RCTs and meta-analyses, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision of the evidence and the potential risk of publication bias.ResultsThe literature search revealed 26 meta-analyses conducted between 2002 and 2018 on 1-49 RCTs in major, minor and seasonal depression. In patients with mild to moderate major depression, moderate quality evidence suggested the efficacy of St. John's wort towards placebo and its comparative effectiveness towards standard antidepressants for the treatment for depression severity and response rates, while St. John's wort caused significant less adverse events. In patients with recurrent major depression, moderate quality evidence showed that mindfulness-based cognitive therapy was superior to standard antidepressant drug treatment for the prevention of depression relapse. Other CAM evidence was considered as having low or very low quality.ConclusionsThe effects of all but two CAM treatments found in studies on clinical depressed patients based on low to very low quality of evidence. The evidence has to be downgraded mostly due to avoidable methodological flaws of both the original RCTs and meta-analyses not following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Further research is needed.

Dataset Information

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions for COVID-19: An overview of systematic reviews.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions for COVID-19: An overview of systematic reviews.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets