SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2026
Intranasal natural products for influenza treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical studies.
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Influenza imposes a heavy global public health burden, with current therapies limited by drug resistance and side effects. Natural products have antiviral potential, and intranasal delivery targets the respiratory tract. However, preclinical evidence lacks systematic evaluation, necessitating this review. Methods: This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis conducted per the PRISMA guidelines. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were retrieved and screened from the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Internet, VIP Information Chinese Periodical Service Platform, China Biology Medicine Disc, and Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform databases. A meta-analysis was performed using R Studio software. The mean difference (MD) and relative risk (RR) were calculated using fixed effects or random effects models. Sources of heterogeneity, sensitivity, and publication bias were also explored. Results: A total of 23 studies were included. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that compared with the control treatment, intranasal natural products significantly increased the survival rate (RR = 3.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.44 to 4.93, p < 0.001) and reduced the viral titer (MD = -1.30, 95% CI: -2.27--0.32, p=0.0092 < 0.01) and lung index (MD =-0.10, 95% CI: -0.19--0.02, p = 0.015 < 0.05). In addition, intranasal natural products exerted regulatory effects on the body weight and inflammatory cytokines of influenza-infected mice. Conclusion: The results show that intranasal natural products significantly increase survival and reduce the lung viral load in influenza models, with preliminary exploration of the underlying mechanisms and therapeutic potential. Owing to methodological limitations and heterogeneity, high-quality preclinical studies and standardized animal experiments are needed. Systematic review registration: https://inplasy.com/, identifier INPLASY INPLASY2025120006.
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.