ReviewCureus2024
Safety and Efficacy of Chyawanprash as a Prophylaxis Treatment for COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials.
Review in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Amidst the multifaceted challenges posed by COVID-19, interest in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has risen. Chyawanprash (CP), an Ayurvedic formulation, is recognized for its multifunctional properties. This systematic review aims to evaluate its safety and effectiveness as a COVID-19 prophylactic. A literature search was conducted for articles published within the past three years from databases such as Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Google Scholar. A total of 1008 articles were identified, and 34 were included for full-text screening, resulting in five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) meeting the eligibility criteria. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model, with results represented in odds ratio (95% confidence intervals (CIs)), and publication bias presented through funnel plots. The five clinical trials conducted in India analyzed 153,343 participants. In the meta-analysis, the odds ratios for COVID-19-positive patients, COVID-19-positive in symptomatic patients, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and adverse events were 0.45 (95% CI 0.06-3.08, p = 0.41), 0.37 (95% CI 0.01-12.86, p = 0.58), 0.95 (95% CI 0.18-5.04, p = 0.95), and 0.94 (95% CI 0.63-1.40, p = 0.75) respectively. Notably, significant heterogeneity was observed among studies including both COVID-19-positive cases (I
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.