Review Article

Xiao’er Xiaoji Zhike Oral Liquid Combined with Azithromycin for Mycoplasma pneumoniae Pneumonia in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Table 3

The grade quality of evidence.

Xiao’er Xiaoji Zhike oral liquid and azithromycin compared to azithromycin for MPP in children

Patient or population: patients with MPP
Intervention: Xiao’er Xiaoji Zhike oral liquid and azithromycin
Comparison: azithromycin

OutcomesIllustrative comparative risks (95% CI)Relative effect (95% CI)Number of participants (studies)Quality of the evidence (GRADE)Comments
Assumed riskCorresponding risk
AzithromycinXiao’er Xiaoji Zhike oral liquid and azithromycin

Cough disappearance time
Scale from 0 to 2
The mean cough disappearance time ranged across control groups from 3.70 to 11.36 dThe mean cough disappearance time in the intervention groups was 1.80 lower (2.26 to 1.34 lower)630 (6 studies)⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ⊝ Moderate1,2

Lung rale disappearance time
Scale from 0 to 2
The mean lung rale disappearance time ranged across control groups from 5.14 to 8.87 dThe mean lung rale disappearance time in the intervention groups was 2.10 lower (2.58 to 1.63 lower)630 (6 studies)⊕ ⊕ ⊝ ⊝ Low1,2,3

Fever subsidence time
Scale from 0 to 1
The mean fever subsidence time ranged across control groups from 2.03 to 6.50 dThe mean fever subsidence time in the intervention groups was 1.78 lower (2.21 to 1.34 lower)630 (6 studies)⊕ ⊕ ⊝ ⊝ Low1,2,3

Lung X-ray infiltrates disappearing time
Scale from 0 to 3
The mean lung X-ray infiltrates disappearing time ranged across control groups from 7.91 to 15.50 dThe mean lung X-ray infiltrates disappearing time in the intervention groups was 2.65 lower (3.08 to 2.22 lower)326 (4 studies)⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ High

The basis for the assumed risk (e.g., the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI : confidence interval.

GRADE working group grades of evidence.
High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate.

1Three trials did not detail the random sequence generation method. 2Allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessment, selective reporting, and other bias were not conducted in all trials. 3Heterogeneity is obvious based on I2 being more than 70%.