Chinese herbal medicine for post-viral fatigue: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Fatigue is a common symptom after viral infection. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) is thought to be a potential effective intervention in relieving fatigue. To assess the effectiveness and safety of CHM for the treatment of post-viral fatigue. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controll...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2024-03, Vol.19 (3), p.e0300896-e0300896
Hauptverfasser: Hu, Le-Yan, Cai, An-Qi, Li, Bo, Li, Zheng, Liu, Jian-Ping, Cao, Hui-Juan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Fatigue is a common symptom after viral infection. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) is thought to be a potential effective intervention in relieving fatigue. To assess the effectiveness and safety of CHM for the treatment of post-viral fatigue. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The protocol of this systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022380356). Trials reported changes of fatigue symptom, which compared CHM to no treatment, placebo or drugs, were included. Six electronic databases and three clinical trial registration platforms were searched from inception to November 2023. Literature screening, data extraction, and risk bias assessment were independently carried out by two reviewers. Quality of the included trials was evaluated using Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4, mean difference (MD) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) was used for estimate effect of continuous data. Heterogeneity among trials was assessed through I2 value. Overall, nineteen studies with 1921 patients were included. Results of individual trial or meta-analysis showed that CHM was better than no treatment (MD = -0.80 scores, 95%CI -1.43 to -0.17 scores, P = 0.01, 60 participants, 1 trial), placebo (MD = -1.90 scores, 95%CI -2.38 to -1.42 scores, P
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0300896