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