ArticleResearch in pharmaceutical sciences2023
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Exploring the clinical effects ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Anti-Inflammatory and Antioxidant Effects of HIIT in Individuals with Long COVID: Insights into the Potential Role ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Trial
- Evaluation ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Octreotide and direct/indirect lung injury.Research in pharmaceutical sciences · 2025Review
- The Association Between Dietary Supplement Use and COVID-19 Symptoms.Journal of dietary supplements · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety of anemoside B4 in canine pneumonia treatment: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.