Correction: Efficacy of Jinshui Liujun Decoction on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Wanqiu Huang^1,2*Hui Wang²Di Wu³Lu Zhang²Jiabing Tong²Minghui Yu³Zegeng Li³Qinjun Yang²

• ¹The First Clinical School of Anhui University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Hefei, China
• ²Anhui University of Chinese Medicine, Hefei, China
• ³The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui University of Chinese Medicine, Hefei, China

Adding/removing text Background: Jin Shui Liu Jun Decoction (JSD) is a classical prescription in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). In recent years, JSD has shown beneficial effects on patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, the existing clinical research results are contradictory, and high-quality, evidence-based medical evidence is lacking. Therefore, the exact therapeutic efficacy of JSD has not been fully evaluated.Objectives: This study aimed to ascertain the precise therapeutic efficacy of JSD in treating COPD.A search of 10 electronic databases was conducted up to November 30, 2024. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was used to assess continuous variables, while the relative risk (RR) was calculated to evaluate dichotomous variables. The Luis Furuya-Kanamori (LFK) asymmetry index, along with the Doi plot, Egger's test, and Begg's test, were used to assess publication bias. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the stability of the conclusions. Furthermore, trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to assess the risk of falsepositive results and to estimate the required sample size for the meta-analysis. Finally, single-factor and multi-factor meta-regression were conducted to analyze the sources of heterogeneity.Results: A total of 22 trials meeting the inclusion criteria were included, including 1,817 COPD participants. The meta-analysis indicated that JSD could improve overall treatment efficacy (RR=1.15, 95% CI: 1.053-1.256, PZ=0.002) and pulmonary function (FEV1: SMD=0.661, 95% CI: 0.276-1.046, PZ=0.001; FEV1% Predicted: SMD=0.368, 95% CI: 0.067-0.669, PZ=0.017; FVC: SMD=0.814, 95% CI: 0.392-1.235, PZ<0.001; FEV1/FVC Ratio: SMD=0.602, 95% CI: 0.311-0.893, PZ < 0.001) in COPD, potentially offering benefits in traditional Chinese medicine syndrome scores(SMD=0.936, 95% CI: 0.301-1.571, PZ=0.004) and 6-minute walk distance (6MWD: SMD=0.744, 95% CI: 0.182-1.306, PZ=0.009). The subgroup analysis revealed a higher overall efficacy and improvement in FEV1/FVC Ratio of JLD treatment for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (sCOPD) compared to the acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) group (SMD:0.605 v.s. 0.574, PZ<0.05). Additionally, compared to the simple JLD treatment plan, the conventional biomedicine (CBM)+JLD scheme showed superior overall efficacy in treating COPD patients (RR=1.15, 95% CI: 1.043-1.268,In the abstract, [The abbreviation "JSD" which appears in the abstract should be "JLD"]. This has been corrected to read:[Background: Jin Shui Liu Jun Decoction (JLD) is a classical prescription in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). In recent years, JLD has shown beneficial effects on patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, the existing clinical research results are contradictory, and high-quality, evidence-based medical evidence is lacking. Therefore, the exact therapeutic efficacy of JLD has not been fully evaluated.Objectives: This study aimed to ascertain the precise therapeutic efficacy of JLD in treating COPD.A search of 10 electronic databases was conducted up to November 30, 2024. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was used to assess continuous variables, while the relative risk (RR) was calculated to evaluate dichotomous variables. The Luis Furuya-Kanamori (LFK) asymmetry index, along with the Doi plot, Egger's test, and Begg's test, were used to assess publication bias. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the stability of the conclusions. Furthermore, trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to assess the risk of falsepositive results and to estimate the required sample size for the meta-analysis. Finally, single-factor and multi-factor meta-regression were conducted to analyze the sources of heterogeneity.Results: A total of 22 trials meeting the inclusion criteria were included, including 1,817 COPD participants. The meta-analysis indicated that JLD could improve overall treatment efficacy (RR=1.15, 95% CI: 1.053-1.256, PZ=0.002) and pulmonary function (FEV1: SMD=0.661, 95% CI: 0.276-1.046, PZ=0.001; FEV1% Predicted: SMD=0.368, 95% CI: 0.067-0.669, PZ=0.017; FVC: SMD=0.814, 95% CI: 0.392-1.235, PZ<0.001; FEV1/FVC Ratio: SMD=0.602, 95% CI: 0.311-0.893, PZ < 0.001) in COPD, potentially offering benefits in traditional Chinese medicine syndrome scores(SMD=0.936, 95% CI: 0.301-1.571, PZ=0.004) and 6-minute walk distance (6MWD: SMD=0.744, 95% CI: 0.182-1.306, PZ=0.009). The subgroup analysis revealed a higher overall efficacy and improvement in FEV1/FVC Ratio of JLD treatment for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (sCOPD) compared to the acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) group (SMD:0.605 v.s. 0.574, PZ<0.05). Additionally, compared to the simple JLD treatment plan, the conventional biomedicine (CBM)+JLD scheme showed superior overall efficacy in treating COPD patients (RR=1.15, 95% CI: 1.043-1.268, PZ=0.005).] The original version of this article has been updated.In the published article, there was an error. [The abbreviation "JSD" which appears in "Selection and description of studies" of the Result section should be "JLD"]. "[Upon reading the full texts, one record was found to have a control group that also used JSD intervention, 3 records had study indicators that did not meet our criteria, 7 records had excessive modifications to the ingredients of JSD, 13 records combined other therapies, and 2 records did not report the treatment course.]"The corrected sentence appears below:"[Upon reading the full texts, one record was found to have a control group that also used JLD intervention, 3 records had study indicators that did not meet our criteria, 7 records had excessive modifications to the ingredients of JLD, 13 records combined other therapies, and 2 records did not report the treatment course.]"The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.for a reason not seen here, please contact the journal's editorial office.