ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2021
Herbal Medicine Compared to Placebo for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current clinical applications and clinical evidence of Bojungikki-tang, a traditional East Asian multi-botanical preparation: a scoping review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Beyond Conventional Treatment: Herbal Medicine and Nutraceuticals as Complementary Therapies for COPD and Asthma.The open respiratory medicine journal · 2026Review
- Article
- The Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine among Peritoneal Dialysis Patients at a Second-Level Hospital in Yucatán Mexico.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a respiratory disease characterized by irreversible airflow limitation. Many COPD patients use complementary and alternative modalities, including herbal medicines (HMs). This systematic review investigated the effectiveness and safety of HM in managing COPD symptoms compared to placebo. Nine electronic databases were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to February 12, 2021. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the methodological qualities of the included studies. Primary outcomes were lung function parameters and exercise capacity. A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the effect size for homogeneous outcomes. Fourteen studies were included. There was low to very low quality evidence that HM significantly improved forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (L), FEV1 (%) and 6-minute walk distance, as well as moderate quality evidence that HM significantly improved forced vital capacity (FVC) (L) compared to placebo. However, according to low quality evidence, there was no significant difference in FEV1/FVC (%) or vital capacity (L) between the groups. Low to moderate evidence suggests that HM has the potential to help improve some respiratory functions, COPD symptoms, and some aspects of quality of life in COPD patients compared to placebo. However, these findings are challenged by the poor methodological quality of the included studies, the heterogeneity of HMs used, and potential publication bias. Therefore, the findings could be significantly influenced by further larger, more rigorous RCTs on this topic. Moreover, it may also be recommended to develop standardized HMs focused on some individual herbs that are frequently used or expected to play an important role in patients with COPD, and to elucidate the underlying mechanisms.
Indexed as
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.