SynthesisFrontiers in pediatrics2024
Efficacy of five different traditional Chinese medicine injections in acute upper respiratory tract infection in children: a network meta-analysis and systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Traditional Chinese medicine combined with conventional Western medicine for chronic cough following respiratory infection in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational pediatrics · 2026Article
- Research Landscape and Emerging Trends in Herbal Medicine for Pediatric Respiratory Tract Infections: A CiteSpace-Based Bibliometric Analysis.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Research Progress on Traditional Chinese Medicine Preparations in Respiratory Inflammatory Diseases.Journal of inflammation research · 2026Review
- Inhibiting Staphylococcus aureus Virulence Factors: Advances in Traditional Chinese Medicines and Active Compounds.Current microbiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Acute upper respiratory tract infection (AURI) includes infections caused by a variety of pathogens and is one of the most common diseases in children. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) injections are widely used for treating AURI in clinical practice, but their efficacy is unclear because of the lack of clear evidence. In this study, a network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TCM injections in the treatment of AURI and to provide a reference for clinical treatment. Methods: Eight databases were searched, namely, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SinoMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the Wanfang database, and the Chinese Scientific Journal database (VIP). The search time period was from 1 January 2013 to 1 November 2023. Randomized controlled trials of herbal injections for treating AURI were searched. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool was used to assess the quality of these studies. Review Manager 5.4 and Stata 15.0 were used for the NMA. Results: A total of 81 papers involving 11,736 patients were included. These involved five different TCM injections, namely, Xiyanping injection (XYPI), Qingkailing injection (QKLI), Reduning injection (RDNI), Yanhuning injection (YHNI), and Tanreqing injection (TRQI). QKLI was most effective in alleviating symptoms of fever and improving overall clinical effectiveness. TRQI was most effective in relieving cough symptoms. YHNI was most effective in alleviating sore throat, runny nose, and nasal congestion. The overall incidence of adverse effects of these herbal injections in the treatment of AURI was lower, and their safety profiles were better. Conclusions: The herbal injections combined with ribavirin improved clinical outcomes, and were superior to ribavirin injection alone in alleviating clinical symptoms such as fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose, and nasal congestion, and have favorable safety profiles. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023484099, CRD42023484099.
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.