Question · asked by 1 review
Chinese herbal medicines vs drugs: Total effectiveness rate with subgroup analysis ‐ non‐individualised treatment Clinician's rating
- Population
- atopic eczema
- Intervention
- Chinese herbal medicines
- Comparison
- drugs
- Outcome
- Total effectiveness rate with subgroup analysis ‐ non‐individualised treatment Clinician's rating
It is very uncertain whether CHM changes total effectiveness rate with subgroup analysis ‐ non‐individualised… compared with drugs (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
CHM vs drugs Total effectiveness rate with subgroup analysis ‐ non‐individualised treatment Clinician's rating · Participants with atopic eczema It is very uncertain whether CHM changes total effectiveness rate with subgroup analysis ‐ non‐individualised… compared with drugs (very low certainty). Chinese herbal medicine for atopic eczema (2013) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.37 [1.17, 1.6] | 14 studies · 1301 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chinese herbal medicine for atopic eczema 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
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.