ObjectiveTo characterize the evidence distribution and methodological quality of randomized controlled trials （RCTs） on oral Chinese herbal medicine （CHM） for atopic dermatitis （AD） based on evidence mapping. MethodsSeven databases （CNKI， Wanfang Data， VIP， CBM， Cochrane Library， PubMed， and Embase） and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry were searched for the RCTs in Chinese and English. Evidence distribution was presented graphically and textually， and methodological quality was assessed via the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool （ROB 1.0）. ResultsA total of 168 RCTs were included. The number of annual publications showing an increasing trend， and 72.6% RCTs had sample sizes of 51-100 participants. The studies evaluated 108 distinct CHM interventions categorized as decoctions， granules， Chinese patent medicines， and extracts. Compound Glycyrrhizin was the most frequently used， followed by Xiaofengsan and Chushi Weiling decoction. Among the RCTs， 57.1% had the treatment courses of 4-8 weeks. Outcome measures predominantly focused on clinical response rate， skin lesion severity scores， and adverse events， with less attention to TCM symptom scores， skin barrier function， and relapse rates. The overall risk of bias was generally high. ConclusionWhile CHM for AD is a research hotspot and demonstrates clinical advantages， the related studies have problems such as unclear clinical positioning， poor research standardization and methodological quality， and insufficient prominence of TCM clinical advantages. Large-sample， methodologically rigorous， and high-quality studies are needed to enhance the evidence base for CHM in treating AD.

ObjectiveTo characterize the evidence distribution and methodological quality of randomized controlled trials （RCTs） on oral Chinese herbal medicine （CHM） for atopic dermatitis （AD） based on evidence mapping. MethodsSeven databases （CNKI， Wanfang Data， VIP， CBM， Cochrane Library， PubMed， and Embase） and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry were searched for the RCTs in Chinese and English. Evidence distribution was presented graphically and textually， and methodological quality was assessed via the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool （ROB 1.0）. ResultsA total of 168 RCTs were included. The number of annual publications showing an increasing trend， and 72.6% RCTs had sample sizes of 51-100 participants. The studies evaluated 108 distinct CHM interventions categorized as decoctions， granules， Chinese patent medicines， and extracts. Compound Glycyrrhizin was the most frequently used， followed by Xiaofengsan and Chushi Weiling decoction. Among the RCTs， 57.1% had the treatment courses of 4-8 weeks. Outcome measures predominantly focused on clinical response rate， skin lesion severity scores， and adverse events， with less attention to TCM symptom scores， skin barrier function， and relapse rates. The overall risk of bias was generally high. ConclusionWhile CHM for AD is a research hotspot and demonstrates clinical advantages， the related studies have problems such as unclear clinical positioning， poor research standardization and methodological quality， and insufficient prominence of TCM clinical advantages. Large-sample， methodologically rigorous， and high-quality studies are needed to enhance the evidence base for CHM in treating AD.

Recently, the situation of the preventing and controlling of the novel coronavirus infection has changed. After patients with mental disorders are infected with the new coronavirus (hereinafter referred to as the new coronavirus), they will face the following problems: whether the drugs related to the new coronavirus infection can be used at the same time as the psychiatric drugs, and whether there will be pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic interactions between the medicines How to avoid the safety risks brought by drug interactions? Focusing on the above issues, this article puts forward some suggestions based on the summary of existing evidence, hoping to help front-line doctors.

Recently, the situation of the preventing and controlling of the novel coronavirus infection has changed. After patients with mental disorders are infected with the new coronavirus (hereinafter referred to as the new coronavirus), they will face the following problems: whether the drugs related to the new coronavirus infection can be used at the same time as the psychiatric drugs, and whether there will be pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic interactions between the medicines How to avoid the safety risks brought by drug interactions? Focusing on the above issues, this article puts forward some suggestions based on the summary of existing evidence, hoping to help front-line doctors.