ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). There is no specific cure for this disease, and the clinical management mainly depends on supportive treatment. Traditional Chinese medicines (CHM) is widely used in treating COVID-19 in China. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search will be conducted. Two methodological trained researchers will read the title, abstract, and full texts and independently select the qualified literature according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. After assessment of the risk of bias and data extraction, we will conduct meta-analyses for outcomes related to COVID-19. The heterogeneity of data will be investigated by Cochrane χ and I tests. Then publication bias assessment will be conducted by funnel plot analysis and Egger test. RESULTS: The results of our research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. CONCLUSION: Our study aims to systematically present the clinical evidence of CHM in the treatment of COVID-19, which will be of guiding significance for further research and clinical practice. OSF REGISTRATION NUMBER: 10.17605/OSF.IO/H7GMU.
Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Drugs, Chinese Herbal/therapeutic use , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Phytotherapy , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Research Design , Systematic Reviews as Topic , COVID-19 , Drugs, Chinese Herbal/adverse effects , Humans , Pandemics , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
The number of research involving human subjects on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is surging, bringing challenges to the ethical review committee (ERC) in terms of reviewing speed and special ethical considerations under the pandemic. However, the existing ethical review system and regulations have their limitations to meet the demand for a prompt and efficient epidemic control. Since the research under the public health emergency is different from that carried out in familiar situations to design and implementation, the strategy for a satisfactory ERC response should balance the duty of protecting individual participants as well as the special public needs derived from the disease control. It is suggested that the ethical review-related regulations need to be updated, and a unified supervision system to the overall ERC is required. ERC collaboration, capacity-improving and efficiency-improving measures need to be taken. With respect to the reviewing guidelines, it is suggested that the international norms should be explained with more consideration of the local condition and the exceptional circumstances in this public health emergency. A joint effort needs to be taken for better research conduction.