Estimated effects of herbal medicine on improvements in the clinical outcomes of patients with otitis media with effusion
| Outcomes | No. of studies | Effect estimates | p Value | Study |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proportion of patients with complete resolution (outcome evaluation date ≤1 week) | ||||
| Huanglong tonger pill plus CM vs CM | 1 | RR 2.12 (1.94 to 2.31) | <0.00001 | Shi et al33 |
| Erzhang decoction plus CM vs CM | 1 | RR 1.65 (1.07 to 2.54) | 0.02 | Zhang et al36 |
| Proportion of patients with complete resolution (outcome evaluation date >1 week, ≤2 weeks) | ||||
| Biyan Qingdu granule plus CM vs CM | 1 | RR 1.29 (0.88 to 1.90) | 0.20 | Guo et al23 |
| HM plus CM vs CM | 1 | RR 3.15 (1.37 to 7.26) | 0.007 | Liu et al29 |
| Huanglong tonger pill plus CM vs CM | 2 | RR 1.63 (1.55 to 1.73) | <0.00001 | Shi et al33, Zhao et al37 |
| Tongqiao huoxue decoction plus CM vs CM | 1 | RR 1.68 (0.75 to 3.79) | 0.21 | Chen et al22 |
| HM plus CM vs CM | 1 | RR 1.08 (0.58 to 2.02) | 0.81 | Lu et al31 |
| HM plus CM vs CM | 1 | RR 1.37 (0.93 to 2.02) | 0.11 | Qu et al32 |
| HM plus CM vs CM | 1 | RR 1.37 (0.97 to 1.93) | 0.07 | Li et al27 |
| Proportion of patients with complete resolution (outcome evaluation date >2 weeks, ≤4 weeks) | ||||
| Tongqiao tablets vs CM | 1 | RR 3.05 (1.23 to 7.54) | 0.02 | Liao et al28 |
| HM vs CM | 1 | RR 1.06 (0.31 to 3.65) | 0.92 | Hu et al25 |
| Shenling baizhu powder vs CM | 1 | RR 1.91 (0.77 to 4.75) | 0.16 | Jiang et al26 |
| HM vs CM | 1 | RR 1.43 (1.11 to 1.84) | 0.006 | Liu et al30 |
| HM plus CM vs CM | 1 | RR 2.83 (1.01 to 7.94) | 0.05 | Hu et al25 |
| Shenling baizhu powder plus CM vs CM | 1 | RR 1.55 (1.01 to 2.39) | 0.05 | Tian et al35 |
| Proportion of patients with complete resolution (outcome evaluation date >4 weeks, ≤8 weeks) | ||||
| Tongqiao huoxue decoction vs CM | 1 | RR 3.35 (1.80 to 6.24) | 0.0001 | He et al24 |
| Proportion of patients with complete resolution (outcome evaluation date >8 weeks) | ||||
| Qingqiao capsule vs CM | 1 | RR 2.33 (0.98 to 5.53) | 0.05 | Sun et al34 |
| HM plus CM vs CM | 1 | RR 1.01 (0.51 to 2.00) | 0.98 | Lu et al31 |
| Proportion of patients with partial resolution (outcome evaluation date =4 weeks) | ||||
| Tsumura-Saireito vs CM | 1 | RR 2.33 (1.03 to 5.30) | 0.04 | Sato et al38 |
| Score of pure tone audiometry (dB) | ||||
| Tsumura-Saireito vs CM | 1 | MD 3.30 (−1.88 to 8.48) | 0.21 | Sato et al38 |
| Tongqiao huoxue decoction plus CM vs CM | 1 | MD 5.80 (2.44 to 9.16) | 0.0007 | Chen et al22 |
| Evaluation restoration rate of pure tone audiometry | ||||
| Qingqiao capsule vs CM | 1 | RR 1.61 (1.12 to 2.32) | 0.010 | Sun et al34 |
| Evaluation restoration time of pure tone audiometry | ||||
| Qingqiao capsule vs CM | 1 | MD −1.70 (−2.50 to −0.90) | <0.0001 | Sun et al34 |
| Proportion of patients with hearing improvement | ||||
| Tsumura-Saireito vs CM | 1 | RR 1.80 (0.68 to 4.78) | 0.24 | Sato et al38 |
| Qingqiao capsule vs CM | 1 | RR 1.69 (1.04 to 2.75) | 0.03 | Sun et al34 |
| Evaluation restoration time of hearing | ||||
| Qingqiao capsule vs CM | 1 | MD −1.80 (−3.26 to −0.34) | 0.02 | Sun et al34 |
| Proportion of patients with normalised tympanometry | ||||
| Tsumura-Saireito vs CM | 1 | RR 9.14 (1.18 to 70.61) | 0.03 | Sato et al38 |
CM, conventional medicine; MD, mean difference; RR, risk ratio.