Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine for the treatment of functional dyspepsia (FD) and compare the difference of efficacy between Chinese herbal medicine and western medicine. Methods Based on the principles and methods of Cochrane systematic reviews, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, CBMdisc and CNKI from inception to Dec. 2008. And we also handsearched relevant journals and conference proceedings. We evaluated the risk of bias in the included randomized controlled trials(RCTs) according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. The Cochrane Collaboration’s software RevMan 4.2.8 was used for meta-analysis. Results Seven studies involving 981 patients were identified. The results of meta-analysis showed that: (1) There was no significant difference between Dalitong granule and cisaprid in effective rates (RR=1.03, 95%CI 0.97 to 1.09, P=0.36), piman syndrome (RR=1.06, 95%CI 0.96 to 1.18, P=0.23), gastric emptying function (RR=1.05, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.45, P=0.78), syndromes of TCM (WMD=0.41, 95%CI –1.05 to 1.87, P=0.58), pulse and tongue picture (RR=1.00, 95%CI 0.69 to 1.45, P=0.98), and adverse reaction (RR=1.00, 95%CI 0.69 to 1.45, P=0.46). (2) There was no significant difference between Weishuan pellet and cisaprid on effective rates (RR=1.02, 95%CI 0.96 to 1.07, P=0.53), piman syndrome (RR=1.06, 95%CI 0.97 to 1.15, P=0.19), gastric emptying function (RR=1.05, 95%CI 0.86 to 1.28, P=0.63), syndromes of TCM (WMD=0.70, 95%CI 0.11 to 1.29, P=0.02) and adverse reaction (RR=0.33, 95%CI 0.02 to 5.28, P=0.44). (3) There was no significant difference among Jianpiyiqi prescription (RR=1.16, 95%CI 1.00 to 1.34, P=0.05), Liqifuwei oral liquid (RR=1.00, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.11, P=0.94) and Jianpixiaozhang granules (RR=0.88, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.00, P=0.06) compared with cisaprid in effective rates (Pgt;0.05). (4) There was no significant difference between Hewei Xiaopi Capsule and domperidone on effective rates (RR=1.11, 95%CI 0.87 to 1.41, P=0.42) and piman syndrome (RR=1.07, 95%CI 0.93 to 1.24, P=0.35). Conclusion Chinese herbal medicine has a better clinical cure rate and marks of TCM syndrome on FD than western medicine. But we have no adequate evidence to confirm whether western medicine can be substituted by Chinese herbal medicine for the treatment of FD. Therefore, we need more high quality RCTs to confirm this conclusion.
Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicines for chronic functional constipation. Methods We searched CNKI (1989 to November, 2009), CBM (1989 to November, 2009), VIP (1989 to November, 2009), Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2009), PubMed (1966 to November, 2009) and EMbase (1986 to November, 2009). All randomized and quasi-randomized clinical trials of treating chronic functional constipation with Chinese herbal medicines versus untreated, placebo or western drug groups were included. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. The methodological quality of trials was evaluated with Cochrane Handbook 5.0.2 criteria. Meta-analyses were conducted by the RevMan 5.0 software. Results Twenty-one trials involving 2 602 patients were included. The Meta-analysis results showed that: Chinese herbal medicines improved both syndromes and colonic transit function of recipients; moreover, it is superior to both gastrointestinal prokinetic agent in effective rate (RR=1.18, 95%CI 1.12 to 1.25), healing rate (RR=1.59, 95%CI 1.35 to 1.88), and cathartic in effective rate (RR=1.18, 95%CI 1.10 to 1.27), healing rate (RR=1.16, 95%CI 1.29 to 2.10). Integration of Chinese herbal medicines and gastrointestinal prokinetic agent is superior to gastrointestinal prokinetic agent in effective rate (RR=1.21 95%CI 1.09 to 1.34) and healing rate (RR=1.41, 95%CI 1.11 to 1.79). Conclusion Some Chinese herbal medicines may be effective and safe in treating chronic functional constipation, which can not be bly proved at present for lack of studies with high quality.
ObjectivesTo systematically review the efficacy of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) combined with chemotherapy for ovarian cancer.MethodsCNKI, VIP, WanFang Data and PubMed databases were searched to collect randomized controlled trials on the CHM combined with chemotherapy for ovarian cancer from inception to March 31st, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and evaluated the risk bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was then performed using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsThirteen studies were included. Meta-analysis showed that, CHM combined with chemotherapy group was superior to the chemotherapy alone group in effective rate of TCM syndrome (RR=1.72, 95%CI 1.46 to 2.03, P<0.00.000 1), effective rate of tumor change (RR=1.40, 95%CI 1.21 to 1.63,P<0.000 01), physical condition score (MD=9.19, 95%CI 5.89 to 12.48,P<0.000 01), tumor markers (MD=–18.00, 95%CI –20.62 to –1.538,P<0.000 01), leukocyte reduction (RR=0.67, 95%CI 0.58 to 0.77,P<0.000 01), granulocy tedepletion (RR=0.67, 95%CI 0.55 to 0.81,P<0.000 1), thrombocytopenia (RR=0.55, 95%CI 0.45 to 0.69,P<0.000 01), and digestive tract reaction (RR=0.66, 95%CI 0.50 to 0.87,P=0.004).ConclusionsThe current evidence shows that CHM combined with chemotherapy is superior to chemotherapy alone in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Due to limited quality and quantity of included studies, the above conclusions are required to be verified by more high-quality studies.
According to the evidence pyramid model, systematic review (SR)/meta-analysis (MA) is one of the essential sources with a high level of clinical evidence. A high-quality SR/MA can effectively guide clinical decision-making and practice. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for Chinese herbal medicines (PRISMA-CHM) were officially published in 2020. In this study, based on research cases, the features of PRISMA-CHM were interpreted in detail, so as to help domestic users accurately grasp the details of the reports, in order to improve the quality of the reports of SR/MA of traditional Chinese medicine.