Skip to main content
. 2021 Jul 1;12:680172. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.680172

TABLE 6.

Summary of evidence.

Outcomes Study ID Synthesis of results Total patient number in the treatment or control group Number of studies
CHM vs. WM (including phototherapy)
 Total effective rate Fang, 2016 OR = 3.00, 95% CI (2.33, 3.86), I2 = 23%, p < 0.00001 1,279/898 16
Yang, 2020 OR = 3.33, 95% CI (1.98, 5.66), I2 = 0%, p < 0.00001 288/286 8
Zhang, 2018 OR = 1.94, 95% CI (1.34, 2.80), I2 = 40%, p < 0.0001 745/676 13
 Cure rate Yang, 2020 OR = 2.85, 95% CI (1.90, 4.29), I2 = 0%, p < 0.00001 288/286 8
 PASI 60 Zhang, 2016 RR = 0.99, 95% CI (0.95, 1.04), I2 = 0%, p > 0.05 829/667 13
 PASI 90 Zhang, 2016 RR = 1.00, 95% CI (0.86, 1.16), I2 = 0%, p > 0.05 795/634 12
 PASI score Fang, 2016 MD = −1.43, 95% CI (2.56, 0.29), I2 = 91%, p = 0.01 565/466 7
Yang, 2020 MD = 2.16, 95% CI (3.19, 1.12), I2 = 92%, p < 0.00001 239/239 7
Zhang, 2018 MD = 2.29, 95% CI (4.02, 0.57), I2 = 0%, p < 0.00001 356/361 6
CHM + WM vs. WM
 Total effective rate Zhou, 2020 OR = 4.17, 95% CI (3.05, 5.70), I2 = 0%, p < 0.0001 668/666 14
Li, 2012 RR = 1.26, 95% CI (1.18, 1.35), I2 = 1%, p < 0.001 473/473 8
Wang, 2019 RR = 1.26, 95% CI (1.19, 1.33), I2 = 0%, p < 0.00001 573/540 13
Wu, 2019 RR = 1.15, 95% CI (1.04, 1.28), I2 = 74%, p = 0.007 328/332 7
Yang, 2020 OR = 4.03, 95% CI (2.48, 6.56), I2 = 0%, p < 0.00001 342/335 9
Zhang, 2018 OR = 2.67, 95% CI (1.55, 4.60), I2 = 0%, p < 0.0001 228/216 3
Huang, 2018 OR = 3.07, 95% CI (1.95, 4.82), I2 = 0%, p < 0.00001 378/370 8
Guan, 2017 OR = 3.25, 95% CI (2.69, 3.93), I2 = 0%, p < 0.00001 1839/1731 25
Hao, 2020 OR = 3.55, 95% CI (2.76, 4.57), I2 = 0%, p < 0.00001 1,143/1,080 19
Feng, 2008 OR = 3.13, 95% CI (1.77, 5.55), I2 = 0%, p < 0.0001 356/270 7
Wu, 2015 RR = 1.10, 95% CI (1.04, 1.16), I2 = 78%, p < 0.01 1,209/899 21
 Cure rate Zhou, 2020 OR = 3.26, 95% CI (2.29, 4.63), I2 = 46%, p < 0.00001 668/666 14
Yang, 2020 OR = 2.15, 95% CI (1.55, 2.98), I2 = 0%, p < 0.00001 342/335 9
Hao, 2020 OR = 2.47, 95% CI (2.05, 2.98), I2 = 29%, p < 0.00001 1,091/1,028 18
 Markedly effective rate Wu, 2015 RR = 1.34, 95% CI (1.20, 1.51), I2 = 75%, p < 0.01 1,027/829 19
 PASI 60 Zhang, 2016 RR = 1.40, 95% CI (1.31, 1.50), I2 = 0%, p < 0.05 824/807 17
Yang, 2015 RR = 1.35, 95% CI (1.26, 1.45), I2 = 4%, p < 0.00001 695/647 17
 PASI 90 Zhang, 2016 RR = 1.55, 95% CI (1.37, 1.75), I2 = 0%, p < 0.05 824/807 17
Yang, 2015 RR = 1.71, 95% CI (1.45, 2.01), I2 = 0%, p < 0.00001 695/647 17
 PASI score Zhou, 2020 MD = 2.25, 95% CI (3.69, 0.82), I2 = 88%, p = 0.002 155/157 4
Wu, 2019 MD = 2.34, 95% CI (2.77, 1.91), I2 = 0%, p < 0.00001 244/244 5
Yang, 2020 MD = 3.27, 95% CI (4.90, 1.65), I2 = 98%, p < 0.00001 255/252 5
Zhang, 2018 MD = 2.78, 95% CI (3.86, 1.70), I2 = 86%, p < 0.00001 96/96 2
Huang, 2018 Decline of PASI score: MD = 3.03, 95% CI (2.21, 3.85), I2 = 62%, p < 0.00001 378/370 8
Guan, 2017 MD = 3.46, 95% CI (4.66, 2.26), I2 = 93%, p < 0.00001 869/793 12
Hao, 2020 MD = 2.21, 95% CI (2.98, 1.43), I2 = 68%, p < 0.00001 192/192 4
Wu, 2015 MD = 2.35, 95% CI (3.64, 1.06), I2 = 83%, p = 0.0003 129/109 3
 Recurrence rate Li, 2012 RR = 0.26, 95% CI (0.11, 0.60), I2 = 1%, p = 0.002 124/131 2
Guan, 2017 OR = 0.27, 95% CI (0.18, 0.42), I2 = 34%, p < 0.00001 289/186 5
Hao, 2020 OR = 0.41, 95% CI (0.24, 0.69), I2 = 0%, p = 0.0008 228/228 5
 Adverse events incidence Zhou, 2020 OR = 0.51, 95% CI (0.27, 0.95), I2 = 67%, p = 0.04 605/603 12
Li, 2012 RR = 0.88, 95% CI (0.42, 1.84), I2 = 70%, p = 0.74 395/395 7
Huang, 2018 OR = 1.30, 95% CI (0.80, 2.12), I2 = 0%, p = 0.29 378/370 8
Guan, 2017 OR = 0.59, 95% CI (0.33, 1.05), I2 = 75%, p = 0.07 1,010/939 13
Hao, 2020 OR = 0.68, 95% CI (0.38, 1.20), I2 = 64%, p = 0.18 440/426 8
Yang, 2015 RR = 0.66, 95% CI (0.46, 0.96), I2 = 53%, p < 0.05 464/428 12

CHM, Chinese herbal medicine; WM, Western medicine; RR, risk ratio; OR, odds ratio; MD, mean difference; CI, confidence interval.