↓ Skip to main content

Flavonoids for Treating Viral Acute Respiratory Tract Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 30 Randomized Controlled Trials

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, February 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Flavonoids for Treating Viral Acute Respiratory Tract Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 30 Randomized Controlled Trials
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, February 2022
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2022.814669
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jia Yao, Yuan Zhang, Xian-Zhe Wang, Jia Zhao, Zhao-Jun Yang, Yu-Ping Lin, Lu Sun, Qi-Yun Lu, Guan-Jie Fan

Abstract

This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of flavonoids in treating viral acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were entered into meta-analyses performed separately for each indication. Efficacy analyses were based on changes in disease-specific symptom scores. Safety was analyzed based on the pooled data from all eligible trials, by comparing the incidence of adverse events between flavonoids and the control. In this study, thirty RCTs (n = 5,166) were included. In common cold, results showed that the flavonoids group decreased total cold intensity score (CIS), the sum of sum of symptom intensity differences (SSID) of CIS, and duration of inability to work vs. the control group. In influenza, the flavonoids group improved the visual analog scores for symptoms. In COVID-19, the flavonoids group decreased the time taken for alleviation of symptoms, time taken for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR clearance, the RT-PCR positive subjects at day 7, time to achievement of the normal status of symptoms, patients needed oxygen, patients hospitalized and requiring mechanical ventilation, patients in ICU, days of hospitalization, and mortality vs. the control group. In acute non-streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis, the flavonoids group decreased the tonsillitis severity score (TSS) on day 7. In acute rhinosinusitis, the flavonoids group decreased the sinusitis severity score (SSS) on day 7, days off work, and duration of illness. In acute bronchitis, the flavonoids group decreased the bronchitis severity score (BSS) on day 7, days off work, and duration of illness. In bronchial pneumonia, the flavonoids group decreased the time to symptoms disappearance, the level of interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin-8 (IL-8), and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α). In upper respiratory tract infections, the flavonoids group decreased total CIS on day 7 and increased the improvement rate of symptoms. Furthermore, the results of the incidence of adverse reactions did not differ between the flavonoids and the control group. Results from this systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that flavonoids were efficacious and safe in treating viral ARTIs including the common cold, influenza, COVID-19, acute non-streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis, acute rhinosinusitis, acute bronchitis, bronchial pneumonia, and upper respiratory tract infections. However, uncertainty remains because there were few RCTs per type of ARTI and many of the RCTs were small and of low quality with a substantial risk of bias. Given the limitations, we suggest that the conclusions need to be confirmed on a larger scale with more detailed instructions in future studies.Systematic Review Registration: inplasy.com/inplasy-2021-8-0107/, identifier: INPLASY20218010.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Professor 2 5%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 17 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Chemistry 2 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 18 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 December 2023.
All research outputs
#2,568,350
of 25,563,770 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#1,219
of 14,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,292
of 449,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#64
of 939 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,563,770 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,297 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 449,708 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 939 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.