Xuanfei Zhisou for COVID-19
c19early.org
COVID-19 Treatment Clinical Evidence
COVID-19 involves the interplay of 400+ viral and host proteins and factors, providing many therapeutic targets.
c19early analyzes 6,000+ studies for 210+ treatments—over 17 million hours of research.
Only three high-profit early treatments are approved in the US.
In reality, many treatments reduce risk,
with 25 low-cost treatments approved across 163 countries.
-
Naso/
oropharyngeal treatment Effective Treatment directly to the primary source of initial infection. -
Healthy lifestyles Protective Exercise, sunlight, a healthy diet, and good sleep all reduce risk.
-
Immune support Effective Vitamins A, C, D, and zinc show reduced risk, as with other viruses.
-
Thermotherapy Effective Methods for increasing internal body temperature, enhancing immune system function.
-
Systemic agents Effective Many systemic agents reduce risk, and may be required when infection progresses.
-
High-profit systemic agents Conditional Effective, but with greater access and cost barriers.
-
Monoclonal antibodies Limited Utility Effective but rarely used—high cost, variant dependence, IV/SC admin.
-
Acetaminophen Harmful Increased risk of severe outcomes and mortality.
-
Remdesivir Harmful Increased mortality with longer followup. Increased kidney and liver injury, cardiac disorders.
Xuanfei Zhisou may be beneficial for
COVID-19 according to the study below.
COVID-19 involves the interplay of 400+ viral and host proteins and factors providing many therapeutic targets.
Scientists have proposed 11,000+ potential treatments.
c19early.org analyzes
210+ treatments.
We have not reviewed Xuanfei Zhisou in detail.
, The methodological reporting quality in strictly randomized controlled trials for COVID-19 and precise reporting of Chinese herbal medicine formula intervention, Frontiers in Pharmacology, doi:10.3389/fphar.2025.1532290
BackgroundChinese herbal medicine (CHM) formulas played an important role during the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on CHM for COVID-19 were quickly published. Concerns have been raised about their quality. In addition, inadequate detailed information on CHM formula intervention may arouse suspicion about their effectiveness. We aim to assess the most recent evidence of the methodological reporting quality of these RCTs with strict randomization, and the precise reporting of the CHM formula intervention.MethodsRCTs on CHM formulas for COVID-19 were searched from nine databases. The CONSORT 2010, CONSORT-CHM Formulas 2017, and risk of bias were the guidelines used to assess the included RCTs. The checklist of sub-questions based on CONSORT-CHM Formulas 2017 was used to evaluate the precise reporting of CHM formula intervention. A comparison was made between RCTs that enrolled participants during and after the first wave of the pandemic (defined here as December 2019 to March 2020).ResultsThe average score for 66 studies evaluated based on three guidelines, the CONSORT 2010, the CONSORT-CHM Formulas 2017, and the checklist of sub-questions based on the CONSORT-CHM Formulas 2017, is 16.4, 15.2, and 17.2, respectively. The reporting rate of sample size calculation, allocation concealment, and blinding is less than 30%. The checklist of sub-questions based on the CONSORT-CHM formulas 2017 can help report and assess CHM formula intervention more precisely. Most studies assessed an “unclear risk of bias” due to insufficient information. RCTs published in English and recruited subjects during the first wave of the pandemic have a higher risk of participant blinding bias than the studies recruited subjects after that (P < 0.05).ConclusionThe methodological reporting quality in strictly randomized RCTs on CHM formulas for COVID-19 is inadequate—the reporting of sample size calculation, allocation concealment, and blinding need to improve especially. The checklist of sub-questions based on CONSORT-CHM formulas 2017 can help report and assess CHM formula intervention more precisely. The methodological reporting quality of RCTs published in English and enrolled participants during the first wave of the pandemic is worse than the studies that recruited subjects after the first wave of the pandemic.