IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0343026.html

Comparative efficacy and safety of Chinese botanical drug injection in patients with sepsis: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Author

Listed:
  • Yue Yuan
  • Jiajia Wang
  • Siyuan Lei
  • Jiansheng Li

Abstract

Background: Sepsis represents a significant global health challenge, contributing to considerable morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Integrating Chinese botanical drug injections (CBDIs) with Western Medical Treatments (WMT) has been increasingly recognized for its enhanced therapeutic effects in sepsis management. This Bayesian network meta-analysis aims to identify the optimal combination regimen of CBDIs and WMT for sepsis therapy. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across eight electronic databases to identify Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) relevant to our study criteria, spanning from their inception until January 1, 2024. The quality of included studies was rigorously assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias 2 (ROB 2) tool. Data synthesis and analysis were performed utilizing R 4.1.2 and Stata 17.0 software. Additionally, publication bias was assessed through the construction of funnel plots. Results: This network meta-analysis assessed 72 RCTs involving 6,351 participants to evaluate the effectiveness of seven CBDIs in conjunction with WMT. It found Huangqi injection to be the most effective in improving APACHE II scores. Tanreqing injections significantly reduced procalcitonin (PCT) levels, with particularly superior. Shenmai injection was most effective in decreasing C-reactive protein (CRP) levels. In terms of reducing tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), Shenmai injection with WMT showed the best results. Xuebijing injection stood out in lowering white blood cell counts (WBC). Huangqi injection was noted for its best effectiveness in the 28-day mortality rates. Conclusion: The therapeutic efficacy of CBDIs in treating sepsis is underscored by our research findings, wherein certain botanical drugs exhibit heightened efficacy and safety attributes. The incorporation of these alternative modalities into contemporary sepsis management paradigms is advocated by the outcomes of our investigation. Nonetheless, rigorous, large-scale trials are imperative to substantiate and enhance these preliminary discoveries.

Suggested Citation

  • Yue Yuan & Jiajia Wang & Siyuan Lei & Jiansheng Li, 2026. "Comparative efficacy and safety of Chinese botanical drug injection in patients with sepsis: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(3), pages 1-19, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0343026
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0343026
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0343026
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0343026&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0343026?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0343026. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.