Table 3.
Impact on symptoms: findings from analyses not amenable to meta‐analysis
| 3M3F | LHQW | JHQG | QFPD | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study ID (sample size) | Hu 2020 (n = 284) | Cheng 2020 (n = 102) | Yu 2020 (n = 295) | Lv 2020 (n = 101) | Duan 2020 (n = 123) | Li 2020 (n = 60) |
| Proportion of patients becoming severe | TG vs. CG 2.1% vs. 4.2%, mean difference: −2.1%, 95%CI: −7.0%–2.4%, p = 0.498 |
TG: 4/51 (7.8%) CG: 11/51 (21.6%) significance discussed in text |
Inconsistent definitions and numbers reported |
TG: 9/82(11.0%) CG: 10/41(24.4%) p > 0.05 |
TG: 6/30 (20.0%) CG: 12/30 (40.0%), p > 0.05 |
|
| Proportion of patients becoming cured | TG: 91.5%, CG: 82.4%, mean difference: 9.2%, 95%CI 1.3%–17.1% |
TG: 27/30 (90.0%) CG: 25/30 (83.3%), p > 0.05 |
||||
| Time to resolution of fever (days) | TG vs. CG: 2 vs. 3 days, HR: 1.39, 95%CI: 1.00‐1.94, p = 0.017 |
TG: median 6 d CG: median 7 d p = 0.171 |
||||
| Time to resolution of cough | TG vs. CG: 7 vs. 10 days, HR: 1.71, 95%CI: 1.30‐2.23 |
TG: 3.9 ± 2.0 CG: 5.2 ± 1.8 p < 0.05 |
TG: 4.9 ± 0.7 days CG: 6.6 ± 0.4 days p < 0.05 |
|||
| Time to resolution of fatigue/tiredness (days) | Median (IQR)? TG: 3.0 (3.0‐5.0), CG: 6.0 (4.0‐8.0) HR95%CI 1.8(1.3‐2.5) |
TG: 3.5 ± 1.5d, (n = 51); CG: 4.8 ± 1.53 (n = 51) p = 0.028 −1.30 [−1.89, −0.71] |
||||
Note: All studies' comparator group was usual care; treatment group was usual care plus the component of Chinese herbal medicine. See also Figure 3 for results of meta‐analysis. Apart from one study (Hu et al., 2020) evaluated LHQW capsule, all the rest investigated the granule preparation of LHQW.
Abbreviations: HR, hazard ratio; IQR, interquartile range.