ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Efficacy of Kegan Liyan oral liquid vs. Lianhuaqingwen capsules for patients with mild COVID-19: a double-blinded, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Traditional Chinese medicine has been used for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a therapeutic option. Lianhuaqingwen capsules (LHQW) are well-recognized for their efficacy, while Kegan Liyan oral liquid (KGLY), widely used for influenza treatment, has emerged as a promising candidate for COVID-19 therapy. This trial aims to assess whether KGLY is non-inferior to LHQW in treating mild COVID-19. Methods: A total of 127 participants (63 in KGLY group and 64 in LHQW group) were randomly allocated to receive either KGLY therapy or LHQW therapy in a 1:1 ratio. The treatment was given for 7 days, and the follow-up period was 3 days. Outcome measures: The primary outcome was symptom remission at day 10. Secondary outcomes included symptom recovery, time to symptom remission, recovery rates and time to recovery of selected symptoms, change in visual analog scale score for selected symptoms, area under the curve of the visual analog scale score for sore throat, negative conversion of the SARS-CoV-2 infection, having a positive test result after negative conversion, and incidence of pneumonia. Results: Full analysis set analysis showed that the symptom remission rate at day 10 was 60.7% with KGLY and 58.3% in LHQW (difference + 2.3 p.p., lower limit of 95% confidence interval - 14.8 p.p.), indicating non-inferiority. There were no significant differences between the groups for any secondary outcome. The occurrence of adverse events did not differ between the groups and no severe adverse events were documented in either group. Conclusion: Based on the study results, this trial proved that KGLY was non-inferior to LHQW for mild COVID-19, providing a promising option for COVID-19 treatment. Clinical trial registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=166372, Identifier, [ChiCTR2200059105].
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.