【摘要】 目的 评价舒林酸治疗结直肠息肉的有效性和安全性。 方法 计算机检索PubMed、Cochrane Iibrary、Embase、SCI、CNKI、万方、维普、CBM数据库。按Cochrane系统评价的方法评价纳入研究质量，并进行Meta分析。 结果 共纳入7个随机对照试验（RCT），共235例患者。Meta分析结果显示舒林酸治疗腺瘤性息肉病（FAP）在有效率、息肉消失率方面与安慰剂比较，差异无统计学意义（Pgt;0.05）；治疗散发性结肠腺瘤性息肉病（SCAP）在有效率、息肉消失率、腺瘤直径变化方面与安慰剂比较，差异有统计学意义（Plt;0.05）；舒林酸的不良反应多为消化道症状，与安慰剂比较差异有统计学意义（Plt;0.05）。 结论 系统评价结果显示舒林酸对于家族性FAP的疗效尚不确切，而对SCAP有一定的疗效。【关键词】结直肠息肉；舒林酸；有效性；不良反应；系统评价【Abstract】 Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of sulindac on colorectal polyps. Methods The literatures were searched from several databases including PubMed,Cochrane Iibrary,SCI,CNKI,Wanfang,VIP,and CBM. The quality of the researches was evaluated according to Cochrane systematic reviews, and the Meta analysis was performed. Results Seven RCT were enrolled with a total of 235 patients. Meta analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the effective rate and polyps disappearance rate of FAP between the two groups (Pgt;0.05). There were significant differences in the effective rate, polyps disappearance rate and size of adenomas between the two groups (Plt;0.05); the most common adverse event was the symptoms of digestive tract which differed much from that in the placebo group (Plt;0.05). Conclusion The therapeutic effect of sulindac on FAP is not sure, but it is effective on SCAP.
Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of mesalazine versus sulfasalazine in the treatment of ulcerative colitis.Methods The literatures were searched from PubMed (1966 to January 2010), the Cochrane Library (1966 to January 2010), EMbase (1974 to January 2010), CNKI (1994 to January 2010), VIP (1989 to January 2010), and CBM (1978 to January 2010). The data were extracted, the quality of studies was evaluated according to The Cochrane Handbook, and meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.0 software. Results Sixteen RCTs involving 1 333 patients were included in this study. The results of meta-analyses showed that the total effective rate of the mesalazine group was significantly higher than that of the sulfasalazine group (RR=1.10, 95%CI 1.04 to 1.17, Plt;0.05), and significant differences were noted in the total remission rate (RR=1.82, 95%CI 1.14 to 2.91, Plt;0.05), while there was no significant difference in the relapse rate between the two groups (RR=0.86, 95%CI 0.57 to 1.29, Pgt;0.05). Twelve RCTs reported adverse effects and meta-analyses showed that the incidence of adverse effects was significantly lower in the mesalazine group than in the sulfasalazine group (RR=0.56, 95%CI 0.42 to 0.73, Plt;0.05). Conclusion Analyses show that mesalazine is much more effective and safe in the management of ulcerative colitis than sulfasalazine. However, there is a moderate risk of bias due to methodological quality problems in all 16 included RCTs, so more strictly-designed multi-centered randomized controlled trials with high quality in large-scale are needed to confirm this result.
Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of low-dose versus standard-dose cyclosporine immunosuppressive therapy in kidney transplant recipients. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMbase, SCI, CBM and The Cochrane Library from the establishment to December 2009 to screen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of low-dose versus standard-dose cyclosporine immunosuppressive therapy in kidney transplant recipients. Quality assessment and meta-analyses were performed for the included studies. Results A total of 6 RCTs involving 1551 patients were identified, among which 4 RCTs were graded A and two were graded B. The meta-analyses indicated that there were no significant differences between the two groups at the end of 6-month and 12-month follow-up in the acute rejection rate at a RR 1.07, 95%CI 0.69 to 1.65 and a RR 1.06, 95%CI 0.71 to 1.57, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups at the end of 6-month and 12-month follow-up in the patients’ death rate at a RR 0.64, 95%CI 0.20 to 2.03 and a RR 0.61, 95%CI 0.30 to 1.24, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups in renal function and safety. Conclusion Based on the current evidence, compared with standard-dose CsA, low-dose CsA has the same effect and safety for the short-term results, but the long-term results need to be further studied.
Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of glimepiride for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods We searched the literature from PubMed, Ovid (All EBM Reviews), CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, CBM and other databases. Evaluating the quality of the study according to Cochrane systematic reviews, Meta-analysis was performed for the results of homogeneous studies by The Cochrane Collaboration’s software RevMan 5.0, and the heterogeneous data conducted a descriptive qualitative analysis. Results Six RCTs included in the analysis and Meta-analysis was not performed due to the insufficient data (for the median or standard deviation). Six RCTs are multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. The results showed that glimepiride groups to reduce glycosylated hemoglobin, lower fasting and postprandial blood glucose, postprandial plasma insulin enhance the efficacy were statistically significant differences (Plt;0.05) compared to placebo groups. Four studies informed the impact of fasting plasma insulin (FI) and 3 studies showed that the glimepiride groups improving the fasting plasma insulin (FI) were statistically significant differences (Plt;0.05), but 1 study showed the two groups had no significant difference (Pgt;0.05). All studies showed minor adverse reactions of glimepiride. Conclusion Glimepiride can reduce the glycosylated hemoglobin, lower the fasting and postprandial blood glucose, improve fasting and postprandial plasma insulin for type 2 diabetes patients, and have minor adverse reactions. In a word, glimepiride is an effective and security sulfonylureas drug.
【摘要】 目的 采用循证医学的方法评价硫唑嘌呤（aiathioprine，AZA）治疗溃疡性结肠炎（ulcerative colitis，UC）的有效性和安全性。 方法 计算机检索PubMed、Cochrane library、Embase、CNKI、维普和CBM数据库收集国内外关于AZA诊疗UC的随机对照试验（ramdomized controllel trial，RCT）。按Cochrane系统评价的方法评价纳入研究质量，并进行Meta分析。 结果 共纳入5个RCT，共262例UC患者。Meta分析结果显示，AZA治疗UC在缓解率方面与安慰剂比较，差异无统计学意义[P=1.19，95%CI（0.94，1.49），P=0.14]；在复发率方面，两者比较差异有统计学意义[P=0.72，95%CI（0.54，0.95），P=0.02]；全部不良反应方面和严重不良反应方面，两者比较差异无统计学意义，Meta分析结果分别为[P=2.52，95%CI（0.82，7.74），P=0.11]和[P=4.03，95%CI（0.88，18.53），P=0.07]。 结论 系统评价结果为AZA在疗效方面优于安慰剂，在不良反应发生率方面差异无统计学意义。但由于纳入的5个研究中没有高质量的RCT，且有1个可能产生高度偏倚，使得这一结论受到影响，有必要开展更多设计严谨，大样本、多中心的RCT。【Abstract】 Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of azathio-prine in the treatment of ulcerative colitis through an evidence-based method. Methods We searched the literature from databases like PubMed, Cochrane library, CNKI, VIP, and CBM, and evaluated the quality of studies according to Cochrane systematic review. Finally, Meta-analysis was performed. Results Five randomized controlled trials (RCT) were included in this study with a total of 262 patients. Meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the rate of remission between azathio-prine and placebo in treating ulcerative colitis [P=1.19, 95%CI (0.94, 1.49),P=0.14]. There was significant difference in the relapse rate between the two treating methods [P=0.72, 95%CI (0.54, 0.95),P=0.02]. In addition, there was no statistical difference in all adverse effects [P=2.52, 95%CI (0.82, 7.74),P=0.11] and serious adverse effects [P=4.03, 95%CI (0.88, 18.53),P=0.07] between the two treating methods. Conclusion In the treatment of ulcerative colitis, azathio-prine has a significant advantage in efficacy than placebo, but there is no significant difference in the rate of adverse events between the two groups. However, none of the 5 RCT included in this review has a high quality and one of them even probably has a high bias, which has a big influence on our conclusion. Consequently, multi-center large-scale randomized controlled trials of higher quality are needed to make confirmation.
Objective To assess the efficacy of telbivudine in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of telbivudine therapy vs. lamivudine therapy in both Chinese and English were retrieved from seven electronic databases with a cut-off date in February 2010, including PubMed, EMbase, VIP, CBM, CNKI, and The Cochrane library. The meta-analyses and evaluation on methodology quality were performed for the included studies. Results Two RCTs as Grade-A study were included. The meta-analyses showed that telbivudine was superior to lamivudine in aspects of therapeutic response (RR=1.28, 95%CI 1.10 to 1.48, P=0.001), ALT normalization (RR=1.12, 95%CI 1.01 to 1.23, P=0.02), and PCR-negative HBV DNA or below the lower limit (RR=1.44, 95%CI 1.36 to 1.53, Plt;0.000 01), primary treatment failure (OR=0.28, 95%CI 0.18, to 0.43, Plt;0.000 01), viral breakthrough (OR=0.38, 95%CI 0.32 to 0.47, Plt;0.000 01) and viral resistance (OR=0.44, 95%CI 0.36 to 0.55, Plt;0.000 01). Conclusion Based on the current clinical evidence, telbivudine demonstrates superiority in comparison with lamivudine on all direct measures of antiviral efficacy for CHB. Because of the short follow-up duration and the small sample size of the included studies, it is expected to further discuss the long-term efficacy.
Objective To find out the beneficial and harmful effectiveness of tacrolimus (TAC) compared with cyclosporine A (CSA) for simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant (SPKT) recipients. Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of TAC versus CSA for SPKT recipients were collected from The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMbase, SCI, and CBM database. Bias risk assessment and meta-analysis were performed based on the methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. Results Five RCTs including 342 recipients were included. Pooled data of pancreas survival favored TAC (RR=1.15, 95%CI 1.04 to 1.27; RD=0.11, 95%CI 0.03 to 0.19). However, there were no significant differences of acute rejection (RR=0.81, 95%CI 0.58 to 1.12), patient survival (RR=1.00, 95%CI 0.94 to 1.05), kidney survival (RR=1.02, 95%CI 0.95 to 1.09), and infection (RR=1.00, 95%CI 0.83 to 1.20). Conclusion Based on the recent evidence, TAC results in higher episodes of pancreas survival compared with CSA after SPKT. Treating 100 patients with TAC instead of CSA would increase pancreas survival in 11 recipients.
ObjectivesTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of escitalopram in the prevention of post-stroke depression (PSD).MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, CBM, WanFang Data, VIP and CNKI databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on escitalopram in preventing PSD from inception to March 2019. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 6 RCTs involving 891 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: compared with the control group, the escitalopram group could reduce the incidence of PSD (RR=0.55, 95%CI 0.31 to 0.98, P=0.04). In addition, there was no statistical difference between escitalopram group and control group in rate of adverse events (P≥0.05).ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that escitalopram can reduce the incidence of PSD without increasing the incidence of adverse reactions. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are required to verify above conclusions.