主题：贴，贴， -- 虽远必诛
methods of double blinding. Other trials did not mention how
they used blinding.
Follow up and exclusions
Assessment for potential bias exclusions and attrition
Six trials (Chang 2002; Chang 2005; Chang 2007; Wang 2004;
Wang 2008a; Zhang 2008) reported a loss of participants for the
above listed reasons.Three trials (Chang 2005;Chang 2007;Wang
2008a) used both ITT and per-protocol analysis, and two trials (
Chang 2002; Wang 2004) used per-protocol analysis only.
Selective reporting
Assessment for reporting bias
Selective reporting was not identified in the trials.
Effects of interventions
We performed a pooling analysis on two trials only (Chang 2002;
Yu 2005) due to heterogeneity in the interventions and controls.
1. Recovery
Trials showing statistically significant differences between
the intervention and comparison
Six trials reported that the intervention group had a statistically
significant better recovery than the control group. Of these, three
studied children (Li 1998; Ma 2000; Song 2004a) and the other
three studied adults (Li 1999a; Wang 2004; Wang 2008a) with
the common cold. The results are shown below:
1. Qinwen Keli granule was more effective than Kangbingdu
Koufuye (risk ratio (RR) 2.19, 95% confidence
interval (CI) 1.61 to 2.96) (Li 1998);
2. Shuanghua Penhuji was more effective
than Shuanghuanglian Qiwuji (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11
to 1.97) (Ma 2000);
3. TCM cream was more effective than penicillin (RR
2.10, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.67) (Song 2004a);
4. Sufeng Ganmao Koufuye was more effective than Ganmao
Qinre Koufuye (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.99) (
Wang 2004);
5. Qinkailing injection was more effective than lincomycin
in three doses, respectively (120 ml/day RR
1.41, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.86; 160 ml/day RR 1.41, 95%
CI 1.08 to 1.86; and 200 ml RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.15 to
2.00) (Li 1999a);
6. YiQing ShuanJie capsule and YiQing ShuanJie tablet
was more effective than Chaihuang tablet respectively
(YiQing ShuanJie capsule RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.08 to
2.33, and YiQing ShuanJie tablet RR 1.67, 95% CI
1.14 to 2.43) (Wang 2008a).
Trials showing no statistically significant differences between
the intervention and comparison
Another eight trials showed no statistically significant differences
in duration of symptoms between the intervention and control
groups. Of these, four studied adults (Chang 2002; Chang 2005;
Chang 2007; Yu 2005) and the others studied children (Chen
2004; Wang 1998; Yang 2000; Yu 1997).
1. Jinlian Qinre capsule versus Jinlian Qinre granule (RR
0.97, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.62) (Chang 2005);
2. Sanhan Jiere Koufuye versus (Fenghan) Biaoshi Ganmao
Chongji (combined RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.79 to
2.90) (Chang 2002; Yu 2005). A sensitivity analysis was
performed by deselecting the study by Yu 2005 which
had been conducted in same hospital as the preparation
provider showed that it had a similar result (RR 1.20,
95% CI 0.85 to 1.69);
3. Gegen Cenlianwei Wan versus Yinqiao Jiedupian (RR
1.17, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.73) (Chen 2004);
4. Jianer Qinjieye versus Qinre Jiedu Koufuye (RR 1.45,
95% CI 0.99 to 2.13) (Wang 1998);
5. Huanghu Jiere Daipaoji versus Shiqi Ganmao Daipaoji
(RR 3.62, 95% CI 0.88 to 14.91) (Yang 2000);
6. Caichen Qinre Weixin Guanchangji with virazole and
acetaminophen (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.74) (Yu
1997).
7. A phase II and phase III trial by the same study
team compared Chaige Qingre granule versus Fufang
Shuanghua capsule, respectively. The combined results
of these two studies showed there was no statistically
significant difference between the two drugs (RR 1.05,
95% CI 0.75 to 1.48) (Chang 2007).
2. Improvement
The Pan 2000 study showed a statistically significant improvement
in the severity of symptoms when using the intervention
Xiaoer Reganning, compared to vitamin C (Yinqiao Chongji), for
children with the common cold (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.35).
In this trial, the definition of ’improvement’ included both shortening
of the duration of symptoms and lessening of the severity
of symptoms. The other 14 trials and two combined trials showed
no differences between the two groups on lessening of severity of
symptoms.
Seven trials showed that the number of inefficacies in the intervention
group was statistically significantly less than the control
group. Of these, one trial (Wang 2004) included adults and the
other trials included children:
Chinese medicinal herbs for the common cold (Review) 11
Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd.
1. Qinwen Keli granule was more effective than Kangbingdu
Koufuye (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.90) (Li
1998);
2. Kangbingdupian was more effective than Banlangen
Chongji (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.87) (Liu 2002);
3. Shuanghua Penhuji was more effective
than Shuanghuanglian Qiwuji (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.03
to 0.87) (Ma 2000);
4. Jianer Qinjieye was more effective than Qinre Jiedu
Koufuye (RR0.12, 95%CI 0.02 to 0.91) (Wang 1998);
5. Sufeng Ganmao Koufuye was more effective than Ganmao
Qinre Koufuye (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.38) (
Wang 2004);
6. Huanghu Jiere Daipaoji was more effective than Shiqi
Ganmao Daipaoji (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.85) (
Yang 2000).
7. The Yiqing Shuanjie capsule and Yiqing Shuanjie tablet
have a similar effect toChaihuang tablet (RR 0.94, 95%
CI 0.71 to 1.25, and RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.21,
respectively) (Wang 2008a).
3. Partial improvement
Five trials showed that partial improvement in the intervention
group was statistically higher than the control group.Of these, one
trial (Wang 2004) included adults and the remaining four trials
included children with the common cold.
1. Qinwen Keli granule was more effective than Kangbingdu
Koufuye (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11) (Li
1998);
2. Xiaoer Reganning was more effective than vitamin C
Yinqiao Chongji (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.50) (Pan
2000);
3. Jianer Qinjieye was more effective than Qinre Jiedu
Koufuye (RR1.32, 95%CI 1.05 to 1.65) (Wang 1998);
4. Sufeng Ganmao Koufuye was more effective than Ganmao
Qinre Koufuye (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.60) (
Wang 2004).
Seven trials and a combined analysis of two trials and showed
no statistically significant differences between the two groups. Of
these, three trials included adults (Chang 2002; Chang 2005; Yu
2005) and the other five trials included children with the common
cold.
1. Sanhan Jiere Koufuye versus (Fenghan) Biaoshi Ganmao
Chongji (combined RR 1.04 95% CI 0.92 to
1.16) (Chang 2002; Yu 2005). A sensitivity analysis was
performed by deselecting the trial by Yu 2005 which
was conducted in the same hospital as the preparation
provider, and had a same result (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94
to 1.09).
2. Jinlian Qinre capsules had the same efficacy as Jinlian
Qinre granules (RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.95 to 1.06) (Chang
2005);
3. Gegen Cenlianwei Wan had the same efficacy as Yinqiao
Jiedupian (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.43) (Chen
2004);
4. Shuanghua Penhuji had the same efficacy as
Shuanghuanglian Qiwuji (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to
1.12) (Ma 2000);
5. Huanghu Jiere Daipaoji had the same efficacy as Shiqi
Ganmao Daipaoji (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.35) (
Yang 2000);
6. Caichen Qinre Weixin Guanchangji had the same efficacy
as virazole and acetaminophen (RR 1.13, 95% CI
0.91 to 1.39) (Yu 1997).
4. No improvement
Nine trials showed no statistically significant differences in outcomes
between the intervention and control groups. Of these,
three trials (Chang 2007; Chang 2005; Li 1999a) included adults
and the other trials included children.
1. Sanhan Jiere Koufuye had the same efficacy as (Fenghan)
Biaoshi Ganmao Chongji (combined RR 0.49,
95% CI 0.14 to 1.73) (Chang 2002; Yu 2005). A sensitivity
analysiswas performed by deselecting the Yu 2005
trial, which had been conducted in the same hospital
as the preparation provider and showed a similar result
(RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.06 to 7.09).
2. Chaige Qingre granule had the same efficacy as Fufang
Shuanghua capsule in the phase II (RR 2.00, 95% CI
0.19 to 20.86) (Chang 2007);
3. Chaige Qingre granule had the same efficacy as Fufang
Shuanghua capsule in the phase III (RR 1.07, 95% CI
0.23 to 4.97) (Chang 2007);
4. Jinlian Qinre capsule had the same efficacy as Jinlian
Qinre granule (RR 0.69, 95%CI 0.23 to
