Trial reportJournal of health, population, and nutrition2024
Comparative clinical trial of Langenlianqiao oral liquid and Lianhuaqingwen capsule in the treatment of mild cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Trial report in Journal of health, population, and nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveTo evaluate the clinical efficacy of Langenlianqiao (LGLQ) oral liquid treatment and provide a reference basis for the clincal treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
designAn experimental clinical study was conducted on three groups with confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19. SITE: This study was conducted at Changde Hospital.
participantsA total of 253 patients were enrolled in this study.
methodsThe patients were divided into the LGLQ treatment group (100 cases), the Lianhuaqingwen (LHQW) treatment group (100 cases) and the placebo control group (53 cases), according to the treatment each group received. The occurrence of major clinical symptoms, the duration of symptom disappearance, the number of days in hospitalisation and the duration of infection were compared among the three groups.
resultsCompared with the placebo control group (10.0 [1.2] d, 9.4 [1.3] d), the duration of infection and hospitalisation effectively decreased in the LGLQ group (6.8 [0.6] d, 7.4 [0.8] d) and the LHQW group (6.8 [1.0] d, 7.3 [1.0] d). Furthermore, the incidence of fatigue in the LGLQ group (4.0%) was lower compared to the LHQW group (14.0%) and the placebo control group (15.1%), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.580 for LGLQ vs. LHQW, P = 0.246 for LGLQ vs. placebo). In the treatment of cough, the LGLQ group showed a significantly different effect compared to both the LHQW group (P = 0.014) and the placebo group (P = 0.016). Additionally, for dry cough specifically, LHQW was effective in reducing its incidence compared to the placebo control group (P < 0.05), while LGLQ showed no statistically significant difference from either LHQW (P = 0.39) or the placebo group (P = 0.14). However, neither the LGLQ group nor the LHQW group showed a reduction in the duration of symptom disappearance in patients with pre-existing symptoms (P > 0.05).
conclusionsCompared with the placebo control group, the LGLQ group showed an improvement in the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and a decrease in the duration of hospitalisation and infection, which confirmed that the LGLQ treatment had the same antiviral effect as the LHQW treatment. This may provide in-depth insights for antiviral therapy research.
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.