Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39005565›Full record

ArticleResearch in pharmaceutical sciences2023

Puritat Kanokkangsadal, Chatchai Mingmalairak, Nichamon Mukkasombat, Pranporn Kuropakornpong, Patsorn Worawattananutai, Thana Khawcharoenporn, Intouch Sakpakdeejaroen, Neal M Davies, Arunporn Itharat

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research in pharmaceutical sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Exploring the clinical effects ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Evaluation ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2026
    Article
  4. Octreotide and direct/indirect lung injury.Research in pharmaceutical sciences · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Puritat KanokkangsadalDepartment of Applied Thai Traditional Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand.
Chatchai MingmalairakDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University, Pathumtani 12120, Thailand.
Nichamon MukkasombatDepartment of Applied Thai Traditional Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand.
Pranporn KuropakornpongCenter of Excellence on Applied Thai Traditional Medicine Research (CEATMR), Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University, Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand.
Patsorn WorawattananutaiDepartment of Applied Thai Traditional Medicine, Faculty of Allied Health Science, Burapha University, Chonburi, 20131, Thailand.
Thana KhawcharoenpornDepartment of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University, Pathumtani 12120, Thailand.
Intouch SakpakdeejaroenDepartment of Applied Thai Traditional Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand.
Neal M DaviesFaculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2P5, Canada.
Arunporn ItharatDepartment of Applied Thai Traditional Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose: Experimental approach: The efficacy and safety of APE in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic COVID-19 patients compared with placebo were investigated through a prospective, double-blind randomized control trial. Patients received APE containing 60 mg of andrographolide, three times a day for five days. WHO progression scale, COVID-19 symptoms, and global assessment evaluated the efficacy and adverse events, liver and renal functions were monitored for safety. Findings/Results: 165 patients completed the study (83 patients in the APE group and 82 patients in the placebo group). The highest WHO progression scale was 4 and COVID-19 symptoms were significantly relieved on the last day of intervention in both groups, with no significant difference between groups. APE significantly relieved headache symptoms on day 1 and olfactory loss symptoms on day 2 compared to placebo. The global assessment showed that 80.7% of patients had total recovery after 5-day treatment with APE. Mild diarrhea was the most common side effect with a high dose that resolved within a few days. No hepatic or renal toxicity was associated with treatment. Conclusion and implications: APE at 180 mg/day for 5 days did not reduce COVID-19 progression in asymptomatic or mildly afflicted COVID-19 patients, however, it shortened the symptoms of olfactory loss with no adverse effects over 5 days of use.

Indexed as

CapsuleClinical trialCoronavirusHPLC

Identifiers

PMID39005565
PMCPMC11246112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.