Dataset Information

Cochrane systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicines: an overview.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:our study had two objectives: a) to systematically identify all existing systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) published in Cochrane Library; b) to assess the methodological quality of included reviews. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:We performed a systematic search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR, Issue 5, 2010) to identify all reviews of CHM. A total of fifty-eight reviews were eligible for our study. Twenty-one of the included reviews had at least one Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) practitioner as its co-author. 7 reviews didn't include any primary study, the remaining reviews (n = 51) included a median of 9 studies and 936 participants. 50% of reviews were last assessed as up-to-date prior to 2008. The questions addressed by 39 reviews were broad in scope, in which 9 reviews combined studies with different herbal medicines. For OQAQ, the mean of overall quality score (item 10) was 5.05 (95% CI; 4.58-5.52). All reviews assessed the methodological quality of primary studies, 16% of included primary studies used adequate sequence generation and 7% used adequate allocation concealment. Of the 51 nonempty reviews, 23 reviews were reported as being inconclusive, while 27 concluded that there might be benefit of CHM, which was limited by the poor quality or inadequate quantity of included studies. 58 reviews reported searching a median of seven electronic databases, while 10 reviews did not search any Chinese database. CONCLUSIONS:Now CDSR has included large numbers of CHM reviews, our study identified some areas which could be improved, such as almost half of included reviews did not have the participation of TCM practitioners and were not up-to-date according to Cochrane criteria, some reviews pooled the results of different herbal medicines and ignored the searching of Chinese databases.

SUBMITTER: Hu J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3235143 | biostudies-literature | 2011

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cochrane systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicines: an overview.

Hu Jing J Zhang Junhua J Zhao Wei W Zhang Yongling Y Zhang Li L Shang Hongcai H

PloS one 20111209 12

<h4>Objectives</h4>our study had two objectives: a) to systematically identify all existing systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) published in Cochrane Library; b) to assess the methodological quality of included reviews.<h4>Methodology/principal findings</h4>We performed a systematic search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR, Issue 5, 2010) to identify all reviews of CHM. A total of fifty-eight reviews were eligible for our study. Twenty-one of the included revi ...[more]

PMID: 22174870

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChinese herbal medicines (CHMs) are the major interventions of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), which are typically administered as either single herbs or formulas. The Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) of CHMs are essential references for evaluating the efficacy and safety of CHMs interventions; they are expected to be accurate and reliable. This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of these SRs, particularly whether necessary information related to CHM was adequately reported.MethodsThe Cochrane Database was systematically searched for all SRs of CHM that were published up to 31 December 2017. The primary analysis was to assess their reporting quality based on 27-item of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and 9-item of CHM-related information designed according to TCM theory. Descriptive statistics were additionally used to analyze their baseline characteristics.ResultsA total of 109 Cochrane SRs of CHM were identified from 1999 to 2017. For 27-item of PRISMA, 26 had the reporting compliances higher than 50%, of which 11 were fully reporting (100%). However, for CHM-related information, 65 (59.6%) SRs did not report the specific name of the CHM in the title, 42 (38.5%) lacked TCM-related rationales in the introduction, 62 (56.9%) did not include CHM-related characteristics in the additional analyses, and 77 (70.6%) did not analyze CHM results in terms of TCM-related theories in the discussion. Of 97 SRs that included clinical trials, 38 (39.2%) did not provide the details of composition and dosage of CHMs, 85 (87.6%) did not report the CHM sources, 13 (13.4%) did not provide the dosage form, 95 (97.9%) lacked CHM quality control information, and 57 (58.8%) did not describe details of the controls. For 62 (72.9%) of 85 SRs that included meta-analysis, it was impossible to assess whether meta-analysis had been properly conducted due to inadequate reporting of CHM interventions.ConclusionAlthough the Cochrane SRs of CHM showed reporting compliance with PRISMA checklist, their reporting quality needs improvement, especially about full reporting of CHM interventions and of TCM-related rationales. Reporting guideline of "PRISMA extension for CHM interventions" should be developed thus to improve their quality.

Project description:Background: Multiple systematic reviews (SRs) have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). Here, we aim to perform an overview to assess the methodological quality and quality of evidence of the SRs to provide convincing data on the treatment of AD with CHM. Method: Six electronic databases including Chinese and English were searched, until April 31, 2021. Two researchers independently screen documents and extract data according to the predesigned rules. A Measure Tool to Assessment System Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) was used to investigate the methodological quality, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to determine the quality of evidence for outcomes. Results: Twelve qualified SRs including 163 randomized controlled trials were reviewed. The methodological quality of the included SRs was considered extremely low assessed through AMSTAR-2. Compared with western medicines (WM) alone, CHM as an adjuvant treatment has shown significant effects in improving Mini-mental State Examination, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive, and Clinical Dementia Rating scores. The same is true for CHM alone. Regarding the effect on Activities Daily Living, neither the single CHM nor the combination with WM has an obvious effect. For the total effective rate, both single CHM and the combination with WM shown significant effects. Nine SRs suggested that CHM as adjuvant therapy or single-use had fewer adverse events than WM. Additionally, the quality of evidence for the main outcome was reviewed as low or extremely low according to GRADE profiler data. Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that CHM may be beneficial in improving the cognitive function of AD patients. However, we should be cautious about the evidence due to methodological flaws and low quality. High-quality RCTs are further needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of CHM for AD.

Project description:Background: At present, a number of systematic reviews (SRs) on Xuebijing injection (a patent in China) in the treatment of acute pancreatitis (AP) or severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) have been published. However, the quality of evidence is uneven and has not been comprehensively evaluated. Aim: We evaluated the efficacy of Xuebijing injection for AP/SAP through an overview of SR, and to provide a scientific basis for its effectiveness and safety. Methods: We searched Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, SinoMed, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP comprehensively. The retrieval period from inception to 30 November 2021, and the two reviewers independently complete the literature retrieval, data extraction and evaluation. The Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) and the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) were used to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of the SRs, respectively. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool was used to evaluate the quality grading of outcomes and the risk of bias in SRs was evaluated by ROBIS Tool. Finally, the RCTs involved in SRs were synthesized. Stata15.1 was used for quantitative analysis of total effectiveness rate, time until relief of abdominal pain, time until relief of abdominal distension, and serum amylase level. Results: Nine eligible SRs were included, including 92 RCTs and 6,837 participants. The quality of SRs was relatively good, and the manuscript structures were relatively complete. However, the methodological quality of SRs was low or critically low. RoB rated 5 SRs as low risk of bias and 4 SRs as high risk of bias. In GRADE, a total of 47 results were included in the 9 SRs, of which 5 results (10.64%) were moderate quality, 22 results (46.81%) were low quality, and 20 results (42.55%) were very low quality. The results of data synthesis showed that Xuebijing injection combined treatment increased the total effectiveness rate of AP patients (RR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.17-1.23, p < 0.0001), and there was no heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.589). Compared with the control group, Xuebijing injection group shortened the abdominal pain and distension relief time in AP patients (WMD = -1.69, 95% CI -1.88--1.50, p < 0.0001; WMD = -1.48, 95% CI -1.74--1.23, p < 0.0001), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 84.3%, p = 0.000; I2 = 72.2%, p = 0.000). Serum amylase level was also reduced (WMD = -2.06, 95% CI -2.47--1.64, p < 0.0001), with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 71.6%, p = 0.000). A total of one SR reported adverse drug reaction (ADR), no ADRs were observed in the control group. Conclusion: Although the quality of the evidence is not high, it can still reflect the clinical value of Xuebijing injection as an analgesic and anti-inflammatory traditional Chinese medicine in the treatment of AP/SAP. Therefore, future clinical studies should focus on the long-term efficacy and adverse reactions of drugs. Systematic Review Registration: (website), identifier (registration number).

Project description:Background: In recent years, systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for psoriasis have continuously emerged. Their methods and evidence quality, however, are yet to be evaluated, and whether their conclusions can provide clinicians with reliable evidence is still debatable. Objectives: This overview aims to evaluate the methodological quality, risk of bias, and reporting quality of relevant SRs/MAs, as well as the current evidence of CHM for treating psoriasis. Methods: We searched nine electronic databases from their respective time of establishment to January 20, 2021, as well as the reference lists of the included SRs/MAs, protocol registries, and gray literature. Two reviewers independently used the following: A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2, Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS), the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), and Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to evaluate the methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality, and evidence quality of the included SRs/MAs. Results: This review included 14 SRs/MAs involving 45 outcomes, of which 12 (85.71%) SRs/MAs had a very low quality evaluated by AMSTAR 2 and 7 (50.00%) SRs/MAs had a high risk of bias assessed by ROBIS. The protocol and registration and funding statements were the major reporting flaws according to the PRISMA checklist. The evaluation with the GRADE system demonstrated no outcome of high-quality evidence, and inconsistent efficacy evaluations were found in this overview. Only 15 (33.33%) outcomes were moderate-quality evidence, supporting the claim that CHM plus Western medicine (WM) was superior to WM. Generally low quality of evidence showed no difference in the incidence of adverse events between the combined therapy and WM. However, the conclusion that CHM was superior to WM cannot be drawn due to the inconsistent results. Conclusion: Despite that CHM has the potential benefit and safety in the adjuvant treatment of psoriasis, the conclusion should be treated with caution because of the generally low quality of methodology and evidence. In the future, high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should be carried out, and the quality of relevant SRs should also be improved to promote their clinical application.

Project description:Background Sedentary lifestyle is a major risk factor for noncommunicable diseases such as cardiovascular diseases, cancer and diabetes. It has been estimated that approximately 3.2 million deaths each year are attributable to insufficient levels of physical activity. We evaluated the available evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) on the effectiveness of exercise/physical activity for various health outcomes. Methods Overview and meta-analysis. The Cochrane Library was searched from 01.01.2000 to issue 1, 2019. No language restrictions were imposed. Only CSRs of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Both healthy individuals, those at risk of a disease, and medically compromised patients of any age and gender were eligible. We evaluated any type of exercise or physical activity interventions; against any types of controls; and measuring any type of health-related outcome measures. The AMSTAR-2 tool for assessing the methodological quality of the included studies was utilised. Results Hundred and fifty CSRs met the inclusion criteria. There were 54 different conditions. Majority of CSRs were of high methodological quality. Hundred and thirty CSRs employed meta-analytic techniques and 20 did not. Limitations for studies were the most common reasons for downgrading the quality of the evidence. Based on 10 CSRs and 187 RCTs with 27,671 participants, there was a 13% reduction in mortality rates risk ratio (RR) 0.87 [95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.78 to 0.96]; I2 =?26.6%, [prediction interval (PI) 0.70, 1.07], median effect size (MES)?=?0.93 [interquartile range (IQR) 0.81, 1.00]. Data from 15 CSRs and 408 RCTs with 32,984 participants showed a small improvement in quality of life (QOL) standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.18 [95% CI 0.08, 0.28]; I2 =?74.3%; PI -0.18, 0.53], MES?=?0.20 [IQR 0.07, 0.39]. Subgroup analyses by the type of condition showed that the magnitude of effect size was the largest among patients with mental health conditions. Conclusion There is a plethora of CSRs evaluating the effectiveness of physical activity/exercise. The evidence suggests that physical activity/exercise reduces mortality rates and improves QOL with minimal or no safety concerns. Trial registration Registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019120295) on 10th January 2019. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-020-09855-3.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral factors are associated with an increased risk of preterm birth (PTB); therefore, various interventions might have the potential to influence it. Due to the large number of interventions that address PTB, the objective of this overview is to summarise evidence from Cochrane reviews regarding the effects and safety of these different interventions.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Included reviews should be based on randomised controlled trials comparing antenatal non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions that directly or indirectly address PTB with placebo/no treatment or routine care in pregnant women at less than 37 completed weeks of gestation without signs of threatened preterm labour. We considered PTB at less than 37 completed weeks of gestation as the primary outcome.ResultsWe included 56 Cochrane systematic reviews. Three interventions increased PTB risk significantly. Twelve interventions led to a statistically significant lower incidence of PTBs. However, this reduction was mostly observed in defined at-risk subgroups of pregnant women. The remaining antenatal interventions failed to prove a significant effect on PTB?<?37 weeks, but some of them at least showed a positive effect in secondary outcomes (e.g., reduction in early PTBs). As an unintended result of this review, we identified 28 additional Cochrane reviews which intended to report on PTB?<?37 weeks, but were not able to find any RCTs reporting appropriate data.ConclusionsThe possible effects of a diverse range of interventions on PTB have been evaluated in Cochrane systematic reviews. Few interventions have been demonstrated to be effective and a small number have been found to be harmful. For around half of the interventions evaluated, the Cochrane review concluded that there was insufficient evidence to provide sound recommendations for clinical practice. No RCT evidence is available for a number of potentially relevant interventions.

Dataset Information

Cochrane systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicines: an overview.

Publications

Cochrane systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicines: an overview.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets