表2 8个随访时间小于3个月的随机临床试验的抗病毒效应
http://www.100md.com
中医循证医学
Table 2 The antiviral effect of eight randomised dinical trials with less than three months follow-up
中草药 对照 相对获益 P值 参考文献
Herbs Control (Relative benefit) P value (Reference)
(n/N) (n/N) (95%CI)
清除血清HBsAg (Loss of serum HBsAg)
苦味叶下珠与安慰剂比较 0/52 0/53 不可测量 20
, 百拇医药
Phyllanthus amarus versus placebo not estimable
叶下珠与安慰剂比较 3/16 2/14 1.31(0.25～6.76) 0.7 21
Phyllanthus urinaria versus placebo
苦味叶下珠与安慰剂比较 2/34 0/31 4.57(0.23～91.67) 0.3 23
Phyllanthus amarus versus placebo
, 百拇医药
草药隔山消与不治疗比较 11/30 0/30 23(1.42～373.48) 0.03 24
Ge Shan Xiao herb versus no treatment
蟾驹胶囊与干扰素比较 14/36 13/36 1.08(0.59～1.96) 0.8 25
Toad-ant capsule versus interferon-alfa
肝灵丸与安慰剂比较 0/36 0/40 不可测量 26
, 百拇医药
Gan Ling Wan versus placebo not estimable
肝必复胶囊与干扰素比较 2/23 8/21 0.23(0.05～0.96) 0.04 28
Gan Bi Fu capsule versus interferon
乙肝灵汤与干扰素比较 14/40 10/40 1.40(0.71～2.77) 0.3 29
Yi Gan Ling decoction versus interferon
, 百拇医药
清除血清HBeAg (Loss of serum HBeAg)
苦味叶下珠与安慰剂比较 0/23 1/25 0.36(0.02～8.45) 0.5 20
Phyllanthus amarus versus placebo
叶下珠与安慰剂比较 4/7 3/6 1.14(0.41～3.19) 0.8 21
Phyllanthus urinaria versus placebo
草药隔山消与不治疗比较 9/30 2/30 4.50(1.06～19.11) 0.04 24
, 百拇医药
Ge Shan Xiao herb versus no treatment
蟾驹胶囊与干扰素比较 23/36 24/36 0.96(0.68～1.34) 0.8 25
Toad-ant capsule versus interferon-alfa
肝灵丸与安慰剂比较 3/36 8/40 0.42(0.12～1.45) 0.17 26
Gan Ling Wan versus placebo
肝必复胶囊与干扰素比较 7/16 10/15 0.66(0.34～1.27) 0.2 28
, 百拇医药
Gan Bi Fu capsule versus interferon
乙肝灵汤与干扰素比较 29/40 18/40 1.61(l.09～2.38) 0.02 29
Yi Gan Ling decoction versus interferon
清除血清HBV DNA(Loss of serum HBV DNA)
草药隔山消与不治疗比较 4/30 0/30 9.00(0.51～160.18) 0.13 24
Ge Shan Xiao herb versus no treatment
肝必复胶囊与干扰素比较 2/23 2/21 0.91(0.14～5.92) 0.9 28
Gan Bi Fu capsule versus interferon, http://www.100md.com
中草药 对照 相对获益 P值 参考文献
Herbs Control (Relative benefit) P value (Reference)
(n/N) (n/N) (95%CI)
清除血清HBsAg (Loss of serum HBsAg)
苦味叶下珠与安慰剂比较 0/52 0/53 不可测量 20
, 百拇医药
Phyllanthus amarus versus placebo not estimable
叶下珠与安慰剂比较 3/16 2/14 1.31(0.25～6.76) 0.7 21
Phyllanthus urinaria versus placebo
苦味叶下珠与安慰剂比较 2/34 0/31 4.57(0.23～91.67) 0.3 23
Phyllanthus amarus versus placebo
, 百拇医药
草药隔山消与不治疗比较 11/30 0/30 23(1.42～373.48) 0.03 24
Ge Shan Xiao herb versus no treatment
蟾驹胶囊与干扰素比较 14/36 13/36 1.08(0.59～1.96) 0.8 25
Toad-ant capsule versus interferon-alfa
肝灵丸与安慰剂比较 0/36 0/40 不可测量 26
, 百拇医药
Gan Ling Wan versus placebo not estimable
肝必复胶囊与干扰素比较 2/23 8/21 0.23(0.05～0.96) 0.04 28
Gan Bi Fu capsule versus interferon
乙肝灵汤与干扰素比较 14/40 10/40 1.40(0.71～2.77) 0.3 29
Yi Gan Ling decoction versus interferon
, 百拇医药
清除血清HBeAg (Loss of serum HBeAg)
苦味叶下珠与安慰剂比较 0/23 1/25 0.36(0.02～8.45) 0.5 20
Phyllanthus amarus versus placebo
叶下珠与安慰剂比较 4/7 3/6 1.14(0.41～3.19) 0.8 21
Phyllanthus urinaria versus placebo
草药隔山消与不治疗比较 9/30 2/30 4.50(1.06～19.11) 0.04 24
, 百拇医药
Ge Shan Xiao herb versus no treatment
蟾驹胶囊与干扰素比较 23/36 24/36 0.96(0.68～1.34) 0.8 25
Toad-ant capsule versus interferon-alfa
肝灵丸与安慰剂比较 3/36 8/40 0.42(0.12～1.45) 0.17 26
Gan Ling Wan versus placebo
肝必复胶囊与干扰素比较 7/16 10/15 0.66(0.34～1.27) 0.2 28
, 百拇医药
Gan Bi Fu capsule versus interferon
乙肝灵汤与干扰素比较 29/40 18/40 1.61(l.09～2.38) 0.02 29
Yi Gan Ling decoction versus interferon
清除血清HBV DNA(Loss of serum HBV DNA)
草药隔山消与不治疗比较 4/30 0/30 9.00(0.51～160.18) 0.13 24
Ge Shan Xiao herb versus no treatment
肝必复胶囊与干扰素比较 2/23 2/21 0.91(0.14～5.92) 0.9 28
Gan Bi Fu capsule versus interferon, http://www.100md.com