Effect of Panax ginseng on preventing acute respiratory tract infection: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

RETRACTED: mPEG-b-P(Glu-co-Phe) nanoparticles increase gastric retention time and gastric ulcer treatment efficacy of 20(S)-ginsenoside Rg3

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy). On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author, Jiannan Li, is retracting the above article. The authors informed the journal that they mistakenly provided inappropriate H&E and EGFR immunohistochemical images for the Rg3-NPs group in Fig. 9 of the published article. The results in Fig. 9D cannot be reproduced as originally published. Importantly, in the present version, Rg3-NPs groups do not show an EGFR promotion effect compared to Rg3 and Cimetidine groups. Therefore, their final results and conclusions are not supported. The authors sincerely apologise to the editors and journal readership for these oversights and inconvenience that this may have caused.

PROSPERO's systematic review protocols of traditional Chinese medicine for COVID-19: An overview

BACKGROUND

A large number of protocols for Systematic Reviews (SR) of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). This study aimed to analyze the innovativeness and rigorousness of the SR protocols and make recommendations for the design and implementation of future SRs on TCM for COVID-19. This effort is likely to enhance the value of the produced information and prevent the futility of the research.

METHODS

PROSPERO was searched comprehensively for identifying SRs of TCM for COVID-19 from the inception of the database to August 2020. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted the data, and cross-checked the retrieved information for consistency. The following details were recorded: database, registration time, organizations, types of research included, participants, interventions, and outcome measures. All extracted data were analyzed by an overview. The "P - participants, I - interventions, C - controls, and O - outcomes (PICO)" included in the protocols were compared for similarity. The outcomes of the included SR protocols were compared with the newly published Core Outcome Sets (COSs).

RESULTS

A total of 80 protocols of SR related to TCM for COVID-19 were obtained after a primary search, and finally 71 protocols were included. The majority of the protocols were from China. Thirty-two organizations participated in the protocol registrations, including 11 hospitals and 21 universities/colleges. However, some protocols were not innovative or rigorous enough, as the PICO of some protocols were similar and non-specific, and the searched literature was incomprehensive. In addition, COS is not commonly adopted.

CONCLUSIONS

Registering a protocol of SR is an effective way to ensure the usefulness of the produced information, and to avoid the duplication of research and the wastage of resources. In future SR protocols, it is important to focus on and solve the methodological problems such as non-specific PICO, incomprehensive literature retrieval, and improper outcome measures.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Herbal Therapy: Pertinent Issues Relating to Toxicity and Standardization of Phytopharmaceuticals

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a virulent viral disease that has now become a public health emergency of global significance and still without an approved treatment regimen or cure. In the absence of curative drugs and with vaccines development still in progress, alternative approaches to stem the tide of the pandemic are being considered. The potential of a phytotherapeutic approach in the management of the dreaded disease has gained attention, especially in developing countries, with several claims of the development of anti-COVID-19 herbal formulations. This is a plausible approach especially with the increasing acceptance of herbal medicine in both alternative and orthodox medical practices worldwide. Also, the established efficacy of herbal remedies in the treatment of numerous viral diseases including those caused by coronaviruses, as well as diseases with symptoms associated with COVID-19, presents a valid case for serious consideration of herbal medicine in the treatment of COVID-19. However, there are legitimate concerns and daunting challenges with the use of herbs and herbal products. These include issues of quality control, unethical production practice, inadequate information on the composition, use and mechanisms, weak regulatory policies, herb-drug interactions and adverse reactions, and the tendency for abuse. This review discusses the feasibility of intervention with herbal medicine in the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to take proactive measures to protect public health by improving the quality and safety of herbal medicine deployed to combat the disease. Graphical abstract.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43450-021-00132-x.

Choose your shortcuts wisely: COVID-19 rapid reviews of traditional, complementary and integrative medicine

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an explosion of rapid reviews geared towards providing time sensitive answers for clinical and policy decision-makers. Rapid reviews (RRs) strike a balance between rigour and rapidity to minimise bias and optimise transparency within specified constraints. Methods: This review article appraised the methods and reporting standards of a convenience sample of RR protocols and RRs of COVID-19 clinical management questions, published in the first six-months of 2020. Inclusion criteria were all RR protocols evaluating traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) registered on PROSPERO, and all RRs indexed on PubMed or published on the Oxford COVID-19 Evidence Service. A purpose-specific 9-item reporting checklist reflecting recommended minimum requirements for RRs was applied. Findings were synthesised and narrated in the context of methodological considerations for conducting and reporting RRs of TCIM. Results: Included studies were five RR protocols of TCIM and 16 RRs, of which five considered TCIM. Wide variations in RR methods were proposed or applied, as were the reporting standards. All five RRs that evaluated TCIM had the lowest reporting standards that limited reproducibility and transparency. Despite accepted recommendations, most RRs did not publish a protocol. Conclusions: We propose that specific research disciplines, such as TCIM, have a uniqueness that may lead to unacceptable outputs if minimum methodological standards are not applied. The recommended minimum requirements will optimise the credibility of rapid reviews of TCIM and limit the risk of prematurely disregarding a potentially effective intervention.