Review Article
Chinese Herbal Medicine for Acute Mountain Sickness: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
Table 4
Analysis of the score of AMS.
| Trials | | MD (95% CI) | P value |
| Chinese formula versus Western drugs | | | | Ginkgo leaf tablet versus acetazolamide | 1 | −1.20 [−2.69, 0.29] | 0.14 | A new compound, rhodiola pill, versus acetazolamide | 1 | −3.00 [−3.63, −2.37] | <0.00001 |
| Meta-analysis | 2 | −2.23 [−3.98, −0.49] | 0.01 |
| Chinese formula versus no drugs | | | | Root of Rhodiola rosae versus no drugs | 1 | −6.00 [−6.45, −5.55] | <0.00001 |
| Meta-analysis | 1 | −6.00 [−6.45, −5.55] | <0.00001 |
| Chinese formula versus placebo | | | | Fufang yi hao pill versus placebo | 1 | −1.00 [−2.26, 0.26] | 0.12 | Sheng nao kang pill versus placebo | 1 | −1.67 [−3.24, −0.10] | 0.04 | Sheng nao kang pill versus placebo | 1 | −1.59 [−3.40, 0.22] | 0.08 | Shu li kang capsule versus placebo | 1 | −0.94 [−1.64, −0.24] | 0.009 |
| Meta-analysis | 4 | −1.10 [−1.64, −0.55] | <0.0001 |
| Chinese formula plus routine treatment drugs versus routine treatment drugs | | | | Xing nao jing injection plus routine treatment drugs versus routine treatment drugs | 1 | −8.61 [−9.24, −7.98] | <0.00001 | Danhong injection plus routine treatment drugs versus routine treatment drugs | 1 | −3.38 [−3.61, −3.15] | <0.00001 |
| Meta-analysis | 2 | −5.99 [−11.11, −0.86] | 0.02 |
|
|