ReviewEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2017
Clinical Effects and Safety of Zhi Sou San for Cough: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.
Review in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research Progress on Main Symptoms of Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Improved by Traditional Chinese Medicine.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Review
- Conventional Western Treatment Combined With Chinese Herbal Medicine Alleviates the Progressive Risk of Lung Cancer in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Nationwide Retrospective Cohort Study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionZhi Sou San (ZSS), a traditional Chinese prescription, has been widely applied in treating cough. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ZSS for cough.
methodsWe searched relevant articles up to 5 March 2017 in seven electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PubMed, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Cqvip Database (VIP), China Biology Medicine disc (CBM), and Wanfang Data. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible, regardless of blinding. The primary outcome was the total effective rate.
resultsForty-six RCTs with a total of 4007 participants were identified. Compared with western medicine, ZSS significantly improved the total effective rate (OR: 4.45; 95% CI: 3.62-5.47) and the pulmonary function in terms of FEV1 (OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.24-0.46) and decreased the adverse reactions (OR: 0.05; 95% CI: 0.02-0.01) and the recurrence rate (OR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.16-0.57). However, there was no significant improvement in the cough symptom score comparing ZSS with western medicine.
conclusionsThis meta-analysis shows that ZSS has significant additional benefits and relative safety in treating cough. However, more rigorously designed investigations and studies, with large sample sizes, are needed because of the methodological flaws and low quality of the included trials in this meta-analysis.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.