Dataset Information

Ginseng for health care: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials in Korean literature.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This systematic review was performed to summarise randomised clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and safety of ginseng in the Korean literature.

Method

The study involved systematic searches conducted in eight Korean Medical databases. The methodological quality of all of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We included all RCTs on any type of ginseng compared to placebo, active treatment or no treatment in healthy individuals or patients regardless of conditions.

Results

In total, 1415 potentially relevant studies were identified, and 30 randomised clinical trials were included. Nine RCTs assessed the effects of ginseng on exercise capacity, cognitive performance, somatic symptoms, quality of life, and sleeping in healthy persons. Six RCTs tested ginseng compared with placebo for erectile dysfunction, while another four studies evaluated the effects of ginseng against no treatment for gastric and colon cancer. Two RCTs compared the effect of red ginseng on diabetes mellitus with no treatment or placebo, and the other nine RCTs assessed the effects of ginseng compared with placebo or no treatment on various conditions. The methodological caveats of the included trials make their contribution to the current clinical evidence of ginseng somewhat limited. However, the 20 newly added trials (66.7% of the 30 trials) may provide useful information for future trials. Ginseng appears to be generally safe, and no serious adverse effects have been reported.

Conclusions

The clinical effects of ginseng have been tested in a wide range of conditions in Korea. Although the quality of RCTs published in the Korean literature was generally poor, this review is useful for researchers to access studies that were originally published in languages that they would otherwise be unable to read and due to the paucity of evidence on this subject.

SUBMITTER: Choi J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3613407 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Ginseng for health care: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials in Korean literature.

Choi Jiae J Kim Tae-Hun TH Choi Tae-Young TY Lee Myeong Soo MS

PloS one 20130401 4

<h4>Objective</h4>This systematic review was performed to summarise randomised clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and safety of ginseng in the Korean literature.<h4>Method</h4>The study involved systematic searches conducted in eight Korean Medical databases. The methodological quality of all of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We included all RCTs on any type of ginseng compared to placebo, active treatment or no treatment in healthy individuals ...[more]

PMID: 23560064

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe primary objective of this systematic review is to examine the characteristics of pilot randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the orthopaedic surgery literature, including the proportion framed as feasibility trials and those that lead to definitive RCTs. This review aim to answer the question of whether pilot RCTs lead to definitive RCTs, whilst investigating the quality, feasibility and overall publication trends of orthopaedic pilot trials.MethodsPilot RCTs in the orthopaedic literature were identified from three electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Pubmed) searched from database inception to January 2018. Search criteria included the evaluation of at least one orthopaedic surgical intervention, research on humans, and publication in English. Two reviewers independently screened the pool of pilot trials, and conducted a search for corresponding definitive trials. Screened pilot RCTs were assessed for feasibility outcomes related to efficiency, cost, and/or timeliness of a large-scale clinical trial involving a surgical intervention. The quality of the pilot and definitive trials were assessed using the Checklist to Evaluate a Report of a Non-Pharmacological Trial (CLEAR NPT).ResultsThe initial search for pilot RCTs yielded 3857 titles, of which 49 articles were relevant for this review. 73.5% (36/49) of the orthopaedic pilot RCTs were framed as feasibility trials. Of these, 5 corresponding definitive trials (10.2%) were found, of which four were published and one ongoing. Based on author responses, the lack of a definitive RCT following the pilot trial was attributed to a lack of funding, inadequacies in recruitment, and belief that the pilot RCT sufficiently answered the research question.ConclusionsBased on this systematic review, most pilot RCTs were characterized as feasibility trials. However, the majority of published pilot RCTs did not lead to definitive trials. This discrepancy was mainly attributed to poor feasibility (e.g. poor recruitment) and lack of funding for an orthopaedic surgical definitive trial. In recent years this discrepancy may be due to researchers saving on time and cost by rolling their pilot patients into the definitive RCT rather than publish a separate pilot trial.

Project description:BackgroundBlended care interventions combine therapeutic guidance with digital care. Current research results show the promising role of the blended care approach in clinical care. This new way of delivering health care could have the potential to effectively promote physical activity in different public health settings.ObjectiveThe aim of the systematic review is to investigate the varieties of intervention characteristics of blended care interventions to promote physical activity in terms of structure, behavior change goals, behavior change techniques, and effectiveness of blended care interventions compared to a control group.MethodsWe searched for randomized controlled trials published from 2000 to March 2021 in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science according to the PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Study characteristics, intervention characteristics, and outcome data were extracted. Furthermore, the effect size on the outcome of physical activity was examined or calculated.ResultsIn total, the number of reports identified from the database searches was 4828. Of these, 25 studies were included in the review, with a total of 5923 study participants. Results indicated that the characteristics of blended care interventions showed a high heterogeneity. The combinations of therapist-guided interventions and digital interventions allowed the identification of specific subgroups, but they varied in length (range 8-52 weeks, SD 16.6), intensity, and the combination of the components. The most used combination of blended care interventions to promote physical activity was the combination of one-on-one meetings via telephone and Web-based interventions. Motivational models of behavior change were used most frequently as underlying theoretical foundations. Certain behavior change techniques were used consistently across the individual components, e.g., "problem solving" in the therapist-guided component and "feedback on behavior" in the digital component. Considering the effect size of blended care interventions compared with control groups, most studies showed a small effect.ConclusionsIt can be concluded that blended care interventions have potential to promote physical activity. In the future, further high-quality studies should investigate which type of blended care intervention is effective for which target group. Additionally, insights are required on which intervention characteristics are most effective, taking into account new evidence on behavior change. Registration This systematic literature review was registered in PROSPERO ( CRD42020188556 ).

Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of process interventions (education for clinicians, parent presence, education of parents [before and on day of vaccination], and education of patients on day of vaccination) on reducing vaccination pain, fear, and distress and increasing the use of interventions during vaccination.Design/methodsDatabases were searched using a broad search strategy to identify relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Critical outcomes were pain, fear, distress (when applicable), and use of pain management interventions. Data were extracted according to procedure phase (preprocedure, acute, recovery, combinations of these) and pooled using established methods. Analyses were conducted using standardized mean differences (SMD) and risk ratios (RR).ResultsThirteen studies were included. Results were generally mixed. On the basis of low to very low-quality evidence, the following specific critical outcomes showed significant effects suggesting: (1) clinicians should be educated about vaccine injection pain management (use of interventions: SMD 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47, 0.85); (2) parents should be present (distress preprocedure: SMD -0.85; 95% CI: -1.35, -0.35); (3) parents should be educated before the vaccination day (use of intervention preprocedure: SMD 0.83; 95% CI: 0.25, 1.41 and RR, 2.08; 95% CI: 1.51, 2.86; distress acute: SMD, -0.35; 95% CI: -0.57, -0.13); (4) parents should be educated on the vaccination day (use of interventions: SMD 1.02; 95% CI: 0.22, 1.83 and RR, 2.42; 95% CI: 1.47, 3.99; distress preprocedure+acute+recovery: SMD -0.48; 95% CI: -0.82, -0.15); and (5) individuals 3 years of age and above should be educated on the day of vaccination (fear preprocedure: SMD -0.67; 95% CI: -1.28, -0.07).ConclusionsEducating individuals involved in the vaccination procedure (clinicians, parents of children being vaccinated; individuals above 3 y of age) is beneficial to increase use of pain management strategies, reduce distress surrounding with vaccination, and to reduce fear. When possible, parent presence is also recommended for children undergoing vaccination.

Project description:ImportanceDespite the widespread use of ginseng in the management of diabetes, supporting evidence of its anti-hyperglycemic efficacy is limited, necessitating the need for evidence-based recommendations for the potential inclusion of ginseng in diabetes management.ObjectiveTo elucidate the effect of ginseng on glycemic control in a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in people with and without diabetes.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library (through July 3, 2013).Study selectionRandomized controlled trials ≥30 days assessing the glycemic effects of ginseng in people with and without diabetes.Data extractionRelevant data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. The Heyland Methodological Quality Score and the Cochrane risk of bias tool were used to assess study quality and risk of bias respectively.Data synthesisSixteen trials were included, in which 16 fasting blood glucose (n = 770), 10 fasting plasma insulin (n = 349), 9 glycated hemoglobin (n = 264), and 7 homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (n = 305) comparisons were reported. Ginseng significantly reduced fasting blood glucose compared to control (MD = -0.31 mmol/L [95% CI: -0.59 to -0.03], P = 0.03). Although there was no significant effect on fasting plasma insulin, glycated hemoglobin, or homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, a priori subgroup analyses did show significant reductions in glycated hemoglobin in parallel compared to crossover trials (MD = 0.22% [95%CI: 0.06 to 0.37], P = 0.01).LimitationsMost trials were of short duration (67% trials<12wks), and included participants with a relatively good glycemic control (median HbA1c non-diabetes = 5.4% [2 trials]; median HbA1c diabetes = 7.1% [7 trials]).ConclusionsGinseng modestly yet significantly improved fasting blood glucose in people with and without diabetes. In order to address the uncertainty in our effect estimates and provide better assessments of ginseng's anti-diabetic efficacy, larger and longer randomized controlled trials using standardized ginseng preparations are warranted.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01841229.

Dataset Information

Ginseng for health care: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials in Korean literature.

Objective

Method

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Ginseng for health care: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials in Korean literature.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets