Objective To conduct Meta-analyses on published literatures about the Jianpi Bushen Decoction combined with western medicine for dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB), so as to evaluate its efficacy and safety compared with the western medicine treatment.
Methods The following databases such as PubMed (1995 to 2011), EMCC (1995 to 2011), CBM (1995 to 2011), CNKI (1995 to 2011), Wanfang (1989 to 2011) and VIP (1989 to 2011) were searched to collect the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on Jianpi Bushen Decoction combined with western medicine for DUB. The selection of studies, assessment of methodological quality and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers according to the Cochrane systematic review methods, and Meta-analyses were performed by using RevMan5.0 software.
Results A total of 12 RCTs involving 925 cases were included, of which 471 ones were in the experimental group while the other 454 ones were in the control group. Each study was comparable in baseline data, all with reporting of using random methods, but no mention of detailed random methods, blind methods and allocation concealment. The results of Meta-analyses indicated that compared with single therapy of western medicine, Jianpi Bushen Decoction combined with western medicine for DUB was superior in the total effective rate (OR=5.60, 95%CI 3.25 to 9.67, P lt;0.000 01), bleeding recovery rate (OR=3.79, 95%CI 2.70 to 5.32, P lt;0.000 01), and bleeding recurrence rate (OR=0.14, 95%CI 0.05 to 0.42, P=0.000 5), with significant differences.
Conclusions The integrated treatment of Jianpi Bushen Decoction and western medicine has certain effects on dysfunctional uterine bleeding, and it may be a promising treatment option. Due to the poor quality and high possibility of bias of the included studies, more well-designed multi-centered RCTs should be performed.
Citation: ZHU Xiaoying,QIU Youbo,YANG Zheng. Integrated Treatment of Chinese Medicine plus Western Medicine for Dysfunctional Uterine Bleeding: A Meta-Analysis. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2012, 12(1): 74-80. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20120014 Copy