Single herb plus conventional intervention vs conventional intervention: Visual improvement at end of treatment, as defined by two or more Snellen lines
Single herb plus conventional intervention may leads to higher visual acuity (gain of ≥ 2 lines) (end of treatment) compared with conventional intervention (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Single herb plus conventional intervention vs conventional intervention Visual acuity (gain of ≥ 2 lines) (end of treatment) · people with diabetic retinopathy Single herb plus conventional intervention may leads to higher visual acuity (gain of ≥ 2 lines) (end of treatment) compared with conventional intervention (low certainty). Single herbal medicine for diabetic retinopathy (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.26 [1.08, 1.48] | 5 studies · 541 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single herbal medicine for diabetic retinopathy 2018 · 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.