4.4 Review

Herbal medicine and pattern identification for treating COVID-19: a rapid review of guidelines

期刊

INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE RESEARCH
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.imr.2020.100407

关键词

Coronavirus disease 2019; Pattern identification; Herbal medicine; Chinese medicine; Korean medicine

资金

  1. Korea Institute of OrientalMedicine [KSN2013210]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is pandemic and has caused illness to many people worldwide. This review aimed to summarize and analyze the herbal formulae provided by the guidelines for their pattern identifications (PIs) and compositions of herbs to treat patients with COVID-19. Methods: We searched 7 data sources for eligible traditional medicine guidelines up to March 6, 2020 and found a total of 28 traditional medicine guidelines that provide treatment measures for COVID-19. Results: Of the 28 guidelines, there were 26 government-issued Chinese guidelines and 2 Korean guidelines. After standardizing the terminology of the PIs and herbal formulae, there were 8 PIs and 23 herbal formulae for the mild stage, 11 PIs and 31 herbal formulae for the moderate stage, 8 PIs and 21 herbal formulae for the severe stage, and 6 PIs and 23 herbal formulae for the recovery stage in the Chinese guidelines. In the Korean guidelines, there were 4 PIs and 15 herbal formulae for the mild stage, 3 PIs and 3 herbal formulae for the severe stage, and 2 PIs and 2 herbal formulae for the recovery stage. In the frequency analysis of herbs, Glycyrrhizae Radix et Rhizoma, Armeniacae Semen Amarum, Ephedrae Herba, and Gypsum Fibrosum were found to be the herbs with the high frequency of usage in the Chinese guidelines. Conclusion: This review can be used as guidance for the traditional medicine treatment of COVID-19. Clinical evidence is needed in the future to evaluate the efficacy of traditional medicine. (C) 2020 Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据