Xiao Chai Hu Tang formula vs no intervention: Non‐serious adverse events Maximum
It is very uncertain whether xiao Chai Hu Tang formula changes proportion of participants with ≥ 1 adverse events considered 'not… compared with no intervention (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Xiao Chai Hu Tang formula vs no intervention Proportion of participants with ≥ 1 adverse events considered 'not to be serious' (at maximum · chronic hepatitis B It is very uncertain whether xiao Chai Hu Tang formula changes proportion of participants with ≥ 1 adverse events considered 'not… compared with no intervention (very low certainty). Xiao Chai Hu Tang, a herbal medicine, for chronic hepatitis B (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.43 [0.02, 11.98] | 2 studies · 240 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Xiao Chai Hu Tang, a herbal medicine, for chronic hepatitis B 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.