Evidence Hub

Efficacy of Chinese Herbal Injections for Elderly Patients With pneumonia—A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Control Trials

Yang Yuan, Quan Zheng, Zhilin Si, Juhua Liu, Zhi Li, Lian Xiong, Pan Liu, Li Xu et al.

Frontiers in Pharmacology, 2021

3,111 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

Background: Pneumonia is a prevalent and complicated disease among adults, elderly people in particular, and the debate on the optimal Chinese herbal injections (CHIs) is ongoing. Our objective is to investigate the comparative effectiveness of various CHIs strategies for elderly patients with pneumonia. Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was executed to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by browsing through several databases from their inception to first, Feb 2020; All of the direct and indirect evidence included was rated by Network meta-analysis under a Bayesian framework. Results: We ultimately identified 34 eligible randomized controlled trials that involved 3,111 elderly participants and investigated 4 CHIs combined with Western medicine (WM) (Xiyanping injection [XYP]+WM, Yanhuning injection [YHN]+WM, Tanreqing injection [TRQ]+WM, Reduning injection [RDN]+WM), contributing 34 direct comparisons between CHIs. Seen from the outcome of Clinical effective rate and time for defervescence, patients taking medicine added with CHIs [Clinical effective rate, XYP + WM(Odd ratio (OR): 0.74, 95%Credible intervals (CrIs):0.55–0.98), YHN + WM(OR: 0.66, 95%CrI: 0.45–0.95), TRQ + WM(OR: 0.65, 95%CrI: 0.50–0.83), RDN + WM(OR: 0.60, 95%CrI: 0.40–0.89); Time for defervescence, YHN + WM(Mean difference (MD): −2.11, 95%CrI: −3.26 to −0.98), XYP + WM(MD: −2.06, 95%CrI: −3.08 to −1.09), RDN + WM(MD: −1.97, 95%CrI: −3.61 to −0.35), TRQ + WM(MD: −1.69, 95%CrI: −2.27…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 3,111 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free