| Ref ID | 839 |
| First Author | L. Ang |
| Journal | PHYTOMEDICINE |
| Year Of Publishing | 2022 |
| URL | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S094471132200215X?via%3Dihub |
| Keywords |
• Low methodological quality • COVID • Complementary & Alternative |
| Problem(s) |
• Inconclusive or lack of recommendations • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • Perpetuates citation of poor quality primary study data |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Republic of Korea |
| Checklists |
• AMSTAR 2 |
| Aim | To analyse and summarize systematic reviews of herbal medicine for COVID-19 indexed across four databases from inception up to October 20, 2021, and to evaluate the efficacy and safety of herbal medicines in treating COVID-19. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | From 21 systematic reviews of herbal medicine for COVID-19 indexed across PubMed, Embase, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials from inception up to October 20, 2021. The quality of the evidence was inadequate to provide solid and accurate judgments about the effectiveness of herbal medicine therapies for COVID-19. The outcomes of systematic reviews varied widely but are mainly focused on the overall effective rate and clinical symptoms. Sixteen systematic reviews assessed the adverse effects of herbal medicine interventions in treating COVID-19. Nine systematic reviews arrived at a clearly positive conclusion. Among 12 systematic reviews, the conclusions were neither positive nor negative. None of the systematic reviews drew negative conclusions. The methodological quality of primary studies was reported as poor in 14 systematic reviews and unclear in 5 systematic reviews. Only two systematic reviews reported high-quality primary studies. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 21 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 460 |