Dataset Information

Chinese herbal medicine for psoriasis: Protocol for an overview of systematic reviews.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Psoriasis is a chronic recurrent dermatological disease that patents always suffer from different comorbidities. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has been commonly used in the treatment of psoriasis for a long history. Previous systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) have shown that CHM may benefit patients with psoriasis. This overview aims to summarize the evidence from published SRs/MAs for clinical application and to provide several directions for future researches. METHODS:Nine electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, AMED, CINAHL, CBM, CNKI, VIP Database, Wanfang Databases) will be searched from their inceptions to September 2020 without language restrictions. At least 2 reviewers will independently conduct the study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment. The methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality, and evidence quality will be respectively evaluated by the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2), the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. RESULTS:The results of this overview will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. CONCLUSIONS:We expect to compile current evidence from published SRs/MAs of CHM for patients with psoriasis in an accessible and useful document. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study is a protocol for an overview of SRs/MAs that did not involve individual data. Thus, ethical approval is not required. OSF REGISTRATION NUMBER:DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/VC654.

SUBMITTER: Zhang J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7523869 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Chinese herbal medicine for psoriasis: Protocol for an overview of systematic reviews.

Zhang Jie J Yu Qianying Q Peng Li L Lin Wenxia W Qin Yuesi Y He Ying Y Guo Jing J Xiao Min M Chen Mingling M

Medicine 20200901 39

<h4>Background</h4>Psoriasis is a chronic recurrent dermatological disease that patents always suffer from different comorbidities. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has been commonly used in the treatment of psoriasis for a long history. Previous systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) have shown that CHM may benefit patients with psoriasis. This overview aims to summarize the evidence from published SRs/MAs for clinical application and to provide several directions for future researches.<h4>M ...[more]

PMID: 32991465

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:Background: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common disorder with abdominal pain and bowel habits changes. Herbal medicines (HMs) are frequently used in the treatment of IBS. Therefore, several systematic reviews (SRs) have been conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of HM in IBS patients. This study aimed to investigate the methodology and quality of evidence of SRs, and to describe the current state of research and evidence for the treatment of IBS with HM. Methods: SRs published up to January 2022 were searched using six electronic databases. SRs and/or meta-analyses on the use of HMs for IBS were included. The effects of placebo, conventional medicine (CM), and probiotics were compared with those of HMs. Two investigators independently extracted the data and assessed methodological quality using the Measure Tool to Assessment System Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2). Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the quality of evidence for each main finding. Results: Eighteen SRs were included in this overview. Among them, eight SRs reported only specific subtypes of IBS: six SRs reported patients with diarrhea-predominant IBS, and two SRs reported patients with constipation-predominant IBS. In terms of total efficacy, HM was more effective than placebo, CM, or probiotics. HM showed a more significant effect than CM in relieving independent IBS symptom score (abdominal pain score, diarrhea score, abdominal distension score, stool frequency score, etc.) and recurrence rate. The rate of adverse events was significantly lower with HM compared to CM, and no serious adverse events were reported with HM treatment. According to AMSTAR 2, the methodological quality of the included SRs was extremely low. Furthermore, the quality of evidence for total efficacy was considered low or very low according to the GRADE tool. Conclusion: HM can be considered as an effective and safe treatment for IBS. However, the methodological quality of the included SRs and the quality of evidence was generally low. Therefore, well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed in the future so that a high-quality SR can be used to better assess the safety and efficacy of HM in the treatment of IBS. Systematic Review Registration: https://osf.io/nt6wz, identifier 10.17605/OSF.IO/NT6WZ.

Project description:For patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving chemotherapy, current clinical evidence has indicated add-on benefit of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) in improving quality of life (QoL). However, the relative performance among different CHM is unknown. The aim of this overview of systematic reviews (SRs) and network meta-analyses (NMA) is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different CHM. Seven electronic databases including both international databases and Chinese databases were searched. SRs focus on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with comparison of CHM plus chemotherapy against chemotherapy alone on QoL among NSCLC patients were considered eligible. Data from RCTs were extracted for random effect pairwise meta-analyses. Pooled relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to quantify the impact of CHM on QoL. NMA was used to explore the most effective CHM for improving QoL when used with chemotherapy. From 14 SRs, 61 RCTs (n = 4247) assessing 11 different CHM were included. Result from pairwise meta-analyses showed 6 CHM (Kang-lai-te injection, Shei-qi-fu-zheng injection, Compound ku-shen injection, Kang-ai injection, Zi-jin-long tablet, and Shen-fu injection) has significant beneficial effect on QoL among NSCLC patients when used with chemotherapy, even after adjustment for publication bias. Pooled RR varied from 1.38 (95% CI: 1.11-1.72, I2 = 0.0%, Kang-lai-te injection) to 3.36 (95% CI: 1.30-8.66, I2 = 0.0%, Zi-jin-long tablet). One trial comparing Hai-shen-su (a protein extract from Tegillarca granosa L.) plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy also demonstrated beneficial effect of combined treatment (RR = 3.13, 95% CI: 1.41-6.98). Results from NMA showed no differences on the comparative effectiveness among CHM, but Hai-shen-su plus chemotherapy has the highest probability (62.3%) of being the best option for improving QoL. Use of CHM on top of chemotherapy can significantly improve QoL in NSCLC patients. Although Hai-shen-su showed the highest probability of being the best add-on to chemotherapy, the effectiveness of all 11 CHM reviewed appeared to be similar. In the future, rigorous placebo controlled trials with proper blinding are needed to confirm the effectiveness of CHM.

Dataset Information

Chinese herbal medicine for psoriasis: Protocol for an overview of systematic reviews.

Publications

Chinese herbal medicine for psoriasis: Protocol for an overview of systematic reviews.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets