ReviewAcupuncture and herbal medicine2022
Chinese herbal medicine and COVID-19: quality evaluation of clinical guidelines and expert consensus and analysis of key recommendations.
Review in Acupuncture and herbal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Methodological Quality of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Treatment Evidence-Based Guidelines: A Systematic Review Using the AGREE II and AGREE REX Tools.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2025Pooled it
- How consistent are the key recommendations, and what is the quality of guidelines and expert consensus regarding paediatric cow's milk protein allergy?European journal of pediatrics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To systematically review the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using Chinese herbal medicine (CHM), assess the methodological quality as well as clinical credibility and implementability of specific recommendations, and summarize key recommendations. Methods: As of April 2022, we conducted a comprehensive search on major electronic databases, guideline websites, academic society websites, and government websites to assess the methodological quality and clinical applicability of the included CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and Evaluation-Recommendations EXcellence (AGREE-REX) instructions, respectively. Results: The search yielded 61 CPGs, which were mostly published in 2020; moreover, 98.4% of the CPGs were published in China. Only five CPGs achieved a high-quality AGREE II rating; further, six CPGs could be directly recommended, with most of the CPGs still showing much room for improvement. CPGs had a low overall score in the AGREE-REX evaluation, with the domains of clinical applicability, values and preferences, and implementability being standardized in 21.80% ± 12.56%, 16.00% ± 11.81%, and 31.33% ± 14.55% of the CPGs, respectively. Five high-quality CPGs mentioned 56 Chinese herbal formulas. Half of the recommendations had moderate or strong evidence level in the GRADE evaluation. The most frequently recommended herbal medicines were Lianhua Qingwen granule/capsule and Jinhua Qinggan granule; however, the strength of recommendation for each prescription varied across CPGs and populations. Conclusions: The overall quality of current CPGs for COVID-19 for CHM still needs to be improved; moreover, the strength of the evidence remains to be standardized across CPGs. Graphical abstract: http://links.lww.com/AHM/A34.
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.