Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Oral Chinese Patent Medicine Combined with Conventional Therapy for Heart Failure: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

ABSTRACT: Objectives:By performing an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the efficacy and safety of oral Chinese patent medicine combined with conventional therapy in the treatment of heart failure, to evaluate the reliability and applicability of the conclusions of the current studies and provide evidence for clinical decision-making. Methods:Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of oral Chinese patent medicine combined with conventional therapy treating heart failure were searched based on standardized search strategy in six electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library (No. 2 of 2020), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database (Wanfang), and Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP) from inception to February 2020. The literature was independently screened and extracted by two researchers. The methodological quality of the included literature was evaluated using the AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Review 2). If necessary, we would summarize the original research data and further perform data synthesis using RevMan software (version 5.3), and the evidence quality of the included literature was graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Results:A total of 38 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included, involving 11 kinds of oral Chinese patent medicines, including Qili Qiangxin Capsules (11/38), Qishen Yiqi Dropping Pills (9/38), Shexiang Baoxin Pills (4/38), Wenxin Keli (2/38), Tongxinluo Capsules (2/38), Compound Danshen Dripping Pills (2/38), Zhenyuan Capsules (3/38), Buyi Qiangxin Tablets (2/38), Yangxinshi Tablets (1/38), Xuezhikang (1/38), and Yixinshu Capsules (1/38). The methodological quality of all literature was rated as critically low. The grading of the quality of evidence was 43 moderate, 101 low, and 40 very low. The main reason for the degradation of evidence quality was the risk of bias. In the evaluation of efficacy, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of mortality, which is a piece of low-quality evidence. Qili Qiangxin Capsules or Qishen Yiqi Dripping Pills combined with conventional therapy can significantly reduce the hospitalization rate of patients with chronic heart failure, and the quality of the evidence is moderate. The overall efficacy of oral Chinese patent medicine combined with conventional therapy in improving the clinical symptoms, quality of life, exercise endurance, laboratory tests, physical examination, and other indicators of patients with heart failure is confirmed. In the evaluation of safety, there was no significant difference between the two groups. Conclusions:Oral Chinese patent medicine combined with conventional therapy has good clinical efficacy and safety in the treatment of heart failure. However, due to its low level of methodological quality and evidence quality, the current evidence-based conclusions need to be further verified.

SUBMITTER: Lin SS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7474350 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and Safety of Oral Chinese Patent Medicine Combined with Conventional Therapy for Heart Failure: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

Lin Shan-Shan SS Liu Chun-Xiang CX Zhang Jun-Hua JH Wang Xian-Liang XL Mao Jing-Yuan JY

Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM 20200827

<h4>Objectives</h4>By performing an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the efficacy and safety of oral Chinese patent medicine combined with conventional therapy in the treatment of heart failure, to evaluate the reliability and applicability of the conclusions of the current studies and provide evidence for clinical decision-making.<h4>Methods</h4>Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of oral Chinese patent medicine combined with conventional therapy treating heart failure were ...[more]

PMID: 32908572

Similar Datasets

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: 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:ObjectiveTo access the comparative effectiveness and safety of different oral Chinese patent medicine (OCPM) versus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy regimen (C) alone for colorectal cancer (CRC) through network meta-analysis (NMA).MethodsSeveral electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concentrated on the use of OCPM to treat CRC with C from the inception of the databases to January 10, 2021. We performed frequentist NMA and indirect comparison to compare study outcomes from the included RCTs. The risk of bias of each study was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Confidence in evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA).ResultsA total of 31 RCTs with 1985 participants comparing 10 OCPM, namely, Antike (ATK), Shenyi (SY), Huachansu (HCS), Boerning (BEN), Xiaoaiping (XAP), Jinlong (JL), Compound matrine (CC), Pingxiao (PX), Xihuang pill (XHW), Kangaiping (KAP) were identified. The methodological quality of included RCTs was not very high. The results of the NMA showed that the comparisons were all indirect. Among diverse OCPM, ATK + C had the highest objective response rate (ORR) with a P-score of .63 with risk ratio (RR) of 1.37 (95% CI 1.12-1.66); with a RR of 1.96 (1.26-3.05), SY + C had the highest performance status with a P-score of .73; KAP + C had the lowest nausea and vomiting with a P-score of .91 and with a RR of 0.29 (0.10-0.79); and JL + C had lowest leukopenia with a P-score of .95 with a RR of 0.47 (0.31-0.72). The results of pairwise comparison suggested no difference in outcomes among 10 kinds of OCPM + C. The comparison-adjusted funnel plots suggested that there might not be small-study effects for outcomes. According to the CINeMa approach, the confidence rating of this NMA ranged from "very low" to "low" for various comparisons.ConclusionBased on the NMA, ATK + C, SY + C, KAP + C and JL + C were associated with more preferable and options for CRC patients when referring to ORR, performance status, nausea and vomiting, and leukopenia, respectively. However, owing to the limitations of this research, the above conclusions require further verification by more high-quality RCTs.Prospero registrationCRD42020160658.

Project description:ObjectivesThis network meta-analysis (NMA) was designed to assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of oral Chinese patent medicines combined with chemotherapy for gastric cancer on the National Basic Medical Insurance Drugs List of China.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was performed in seven electronic databases from their inception to February 25, 2020, aiming to collect all related randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral Chinese patent medicines as an adjuvant for gastric cancer. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Scale. NMA was then performed by using STATA 16.0 software and ADDIS 1.16.8 software.ResultsFinally, 30 RCTs were included, involving seven kinds of oral Chinese patent medicines, with a total of 2602 patients. For improvement of clinical efficacy, Bazhen granule combined with chemotherapy was ranked first for effectiveness, followed by the Cinobufacin capsule combined with chemotherapy and Xiao'aiping tablet combined with chemotherapy. Meanwhile, Bazhen granules combined with chemotherapy also were ranked first in reducing gastrointestinal reactions. In terms of improving performance status, the Xiao'aiping tablet was the best and significantly better than other oral Chinese patent medicines. Besides, the Zhenqi Fuzheng granule combined with chemotherapy was best for reducing the incidence of leucopenia.ConclusionsSince only one RCT of Bazhen granule was included in this study for analysis, its statistical efficiency is low. Therefore, this study recommends that the Cinobufacin capsule combined with chemotherapy should be a priority in improving clinical efficacy. In terms of improving patients' quality of life, Xiao'aiping tablet is the best choice. Safety was best for Zhenqi Fuzheng granule and Bazhen granule combined with chemotherapy. Limited by the quantity, quality, and possible bias of included studies, the above conclusions need to be further verified by more high-quality RCTs.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Oral Chinese Patent Medicine Combined with Conventional Therapy for Heart Failure: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

Publications

Efficacy and Safety of Oral Chinese Patent Medicine Combined with Conventional Therapy for Heart Failure: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets