Skip to main content

Table 4 GRADE assessment for combined QFPD-WM vs WM treatment

From: Effectiveness and safety research of Qingfei Paidu (QFPD) in treatment of COVID-19: an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis

Outcome

Certainty assessment

Summary findings

Evidence strength

Risk of bias

Inconsistency

Indirectness

Imprecision

Publication bias

No. of patients

Effect

[Intervention]

[Comparison]

Relative

(95% CI)

Absolute

(95% CI)

Clinical effective rate

Serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

454/473 (96.0%)

368/436 (84.4%)

RR 1.15 (1.10 to 1.20)

127 more per 1000 (from 84 to 169 more)

Moderate

Lung CT

Serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

Publication bias strongly suspected

200/222 (90.1%)

179/243 (73.7%)

RR 1.22 (1.12 to 1.33)

162 more per 1000 (from 88 to 243 more)

Low

Ranging from mild to critical

Serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

15/192 (7.8%)

32/155 (20.6%)

RR 0.35 (0.21 to 0.60)

134 fewer per 1000 (from 163 to 83 fewer)

Moderate

Time for nucleic acid conversion

Serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

Publication bias strongly suspected

248

254

MD 4.08 lower (5.14 lower to 3.02 lower)

Low

Adverse effect

Serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

207/1937 (10.7%)

251/1928 (13.0%)

RR 0.80 (0.68 to 0.95)

26 fewer per 1000 (from 42 to 7 fewer)

Moderate

Fever

Serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

Publication bias strongly suspected

97

78

MD 1.48 lower (1.84 lower to 1.13 lower)

Low

CRP

Serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

156

159

MD 4.39 lower (6.58 lower to 2.2 lower)

Moderate