Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still a pandemic globally, about 80% of patients infected with COVID-19 were mild and moderate. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has played a positive role in the treatment of COVID-19, with a certain number of primary studies focused on CHM in managing COVID-19 published. This study aims to systematically review the currently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OBs), and summarize the effectiveness and safety of CHM in the treatment of mild/moderate COVID-19 patients. Methods: We searched 9 databases up to 19 March 2022. Pairs of reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. For overall effect, we calculated the absolute risk difference (ARD) of weighted averages of different estimates, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) system. Results: We included 35 RCTs and 24 OBs enrolling 16,580 mild/moderate patients. The certainty of evidence was very low to low. Compared with usual supportive treatments, most effect estimates of CHM treatments were consistent in direction. CHMs presented significant benefits in reducing rate of conversion to severe cases (ARD = 99 less per 1000 patients in RCTs and 131 less per 1000 patients in OBs, baseline risk: 16.52%) and mortality (ARD = 3 less per 1000 patients in RCTs and OBs, baseline risk: 0.40%); shortening time to symptom resolution (3.35 days in RCTs and 2.94 days in OBs), length of hospital stay (2.36 days in RCTs and 2.12 days in OBs) and time to viral clearance (2.64 days in RCTs and 4.46 days in OBs); increasing rate of nucleic acid conversion (ARD = 73 more per 1000 patients in OBs, baseline risk: 16.30%). No serious adverse reactions were found and the differences between CHM and usual supportive care were insignificant. Conclusion: Encouraging evidence showed that CHMs were beneficial in treating mild or moderate patients. CHMs have been proved to possess a safety profile that is comparable to that of usual supportive treatment alone. More rigorously designed clinical trials and mechanism studies are still warranted to further confirm the present findings.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to spread globally. Due to the higher risk of mortality, the treatment of severe or critical patients is a top priority. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) treatment has played an extremely important role in the fight against COVID-19 in China; a timely evidence summary on TCM in managing COVID-19 is crucial to update the knowledge of healthcare for better clinical management of COVID-19. This study aimed to assess the effects and safety of TCM treatments for severe/critical COVID-19 patients by systematically collecting and synthesizing evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (e.g., cohort). Methods: We searched nine databases up to 19th March 2022 and the reference lists of relevant publications. Pairs of reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data of interest, and assessed risk of bias. We performed qualitative systematic analysis with visual presentation of results and compared the direction and distribution of effect estimates for each patient's important outcome. We performed sensitivity analyses to observe the robustness of results by restricting analysis to studies with low risk of bias. Results: The search yielded 217,761 records, and 21 studies (6 RCTs and 15 observational studies) proved eligible. A total of 21 studies enrolled 12,981 severe/critical COVID-19 patients with a mean age of 57.21 years and a mean proportion of men of 47.91%. Compared with usual supportive treatments, the effect estimates of TCM treatments were consistent in direction, illustrating that TCM treatments could reduce the risk of mortality, rate of conversion to critical cases, and mechanical ventilation, and showed significant advantages in shortening the length of hospital stay, time to viral clearance, and symptom resolution. The results were similar when we restricted analyses to low-risk-bias studies. No serious adverse events were reported with TCM treatments, and no significant differences were observed between groups. Conclusion: Encouraging evidence suggests that TCM presents substantial advantages in treating severe/critical COVID-19 patients. TCM has a safety profile that is comparable to that of conventional treatment alone. TCMs have played an important role in China's prevention and treatment of COVID-19, which sets an example of using traditional medicine in preventing and treating COVID-19 worldwide.

BACKGROUND: Mobile health apps for diabetes self-management have different functions. However, the efficacy and safety of each function are not well studied, and no classification is available for these functions. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to (1) develop and validate a taxonomy of apps for diabetes self-management, (2) investigate the glycemic efficacy of mobile app-based interventions among adults with diabetes in a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and (3) explore the contribution of different function to the effectiveness of entire app-based interventions using the taxonomy. METHODS: We developed a 3-axis taxonomy with columns of clinical modules, rows of functional modules and cells of functions with risk assessments. This taxonomy was validated by reviewing and classifying commercially available diabetes apps. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 2007 to May 2016. We included RCTs of adult outpatients with diabetes that compared using mobile app-based interventions with usual care alone. The mean differences (MDs) in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) concentrations and risk ratios of adverse events were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. After taxonomic classification, we performed exploratory subgroup analyses of the presence or absence of each module across the included app-based interventions. RESULTS: Across 12 included trials involving 974 participants, using app-based interventions was associated with a clinically significant reduction of HbA1c (MD 0.48%, 95% CI 0.19%-0.77%) without excess adverse events. Larger HbA1c reductions were noted among patients with type 2 diabetes than those with type 1 diabetes (MD 0.67%, 95% CI 0.30%-1.03% vs MD 0.36%, 95% CI 0.08%-0.81%). Having a complication prevention module in app-based interventions was associated with a greater HbA1c reduction (with complication prevention: MD 1.31%, 95% CI 0.66%-1.96% vs without: MD 0.38%, 95% CI 0.09%-0.67%; intersubgroup P=.01), as was having a structured display (with structured display: MD 0.69%, 95% CI 0.32%-1.06% vs without: MD 0.16%, 95% CI 0.16%-0.48%; intersubgroup P=.03). However, having a clinical decision-making function was not associated with a larger HbA1c reduction (with clinical decision making: MD 0.18%, 95% CI 0.21%-0.56% vs without: MD 0.61%, 95% CI 0.27%-0.95%; intersubgroup P=.10). CONCLUSIONS: The use of mobile app-based interventions yields a clinically significant HbA1c reduction among adult outpatients with diabetes, especially among those with type 2 diabetes. Our study suggests that the clinical decision-making function needs further improvement and evaluation before being added to apps