Dataset Information

Clinical Application of Chinese Herbal Injection for Cancer Care: Evidence-Mapping of the Systematic Reviews, Meta-analyses, and Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: Background and objective: Cancer is a life-threatening disease worldwide and current standard therapy cannot fulfill all clinical needs. Chinese herbal injections have been widely used for cancer in Chinese and Western hospitals in China. This study aimed to apply evidence mapping in order to provide an overview of the clinical application of Chinese herbal injections in cancer care based on randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Methods and results: Seven databases were systematically searched for eligible randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses for ten Chinese herbal injections used in cancer treatment and covered in the Chinese national essential health insurance program. Excel 2016 and RStudio were used to integrate and process the data. In total 366 randomized controlled trials and 48 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in the evidence mapping of herbal medicines including; Compound Kushen, Shenqi Fuzheng, Aidi, Kangai, Kanglaite, Xiaoaiping, Cinobufacin, Brucea javanica oil emulsion, Polyporus polysaccharide injection, and Astragalus polysaccharide for injection. Health insurance restricts the scope of clinical application for these herbal injections. The numbers of studies published increased, especially around 2013-2015. The most studied cancer types were lung cancer (118, 32.2%), colorectal cancer (39, 10.7%), and gastric cancer (39, 10.7%), and the most used injections were Compound Kushen (78, 21.3%), Shenqi Fuzheng (76, 20.8%), and Aidi (63, 17.2%). The most consistently reported benefits were observed for Compound Kushen, Shenqi Fuzheng, Aidi, and Kangai for tumor response, quality of life, myelosuppression, and enhancing immunity. Conclusion: The current evidence mapping provides an overview of the outcomes and effects of Chinese herbal injections used in cancer care, and offers information on their clinical application which warrants further evidence-based research in order to inform clinical and policy decision-making.

SUBMITTER: Yang M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8138123 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) provides a theoretical basis for the treatment of psoriasis with considerable benefits and a low toxicity. The purpose of this quantitative study was to show high-quality evidence of the efficacy and safety of CHM for the treatment of psoriasis to promote its clinical application. Methods: Several databases were systematically searched including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China Network Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Scientific Journals Database, and Wan Fang Database. High-quality randomized controlled trials that compared CHM with non-CHM interventions were included. The RevMan5.3 software was used to calculate risk ratios (RR) at 95% confidence intervals (CI) and conduct the meta-analysis. Results: Altogether, 1,215 patients participated in this study, including 711 in the experimental group and 504 in the control group. The psoriasis area severity index (PASI) score of the CHM group was significantly lower than that of the placebo group (MD, -4.02; 95% CI, -6.71 to -1.34; p = 0.003). To achieve PASI-60 and PASI-75, the arrival rate of the CHM group was higher than that of the placebo group (PASI-60: RR, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.17 to 10.61; p = 0.03; PASI-75: RR, 9.87; 95% CI, 3.11 to 31.31; p = 0.0001). Furthermore, the efficacy rate was higher in patients receiving CHM than in those receiving placebo (RR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.93; p = 0.04). The results suggested a greater impact of CHM in improving the dermatology life quality index (DLQI) of patients (MD, -2.12; 95% CI, -3.75 to -0.49; p = 0.01). Regarding pruritus severity, there was no significant difference between the two groups (MD, -1.90; 95% CI, -3.79 to -0.01; p = 0.05). The meta-analysis revealed that the recurrence rate (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.32 to 1.71; p = 0.48) and proportion of adverse events (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.93; p = 0.09) associated with using CHM were similar to those associated with using a placebo. Conclusion: CHM appears safe and effective in the treatment of psoriasis and has a great positive impact on the DQLI of patients; however, CHM could not completely eliminate skin lesions, improve pruritus severity, and reduce the recurrence rate.

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:Complex wounds such as leg and foot ulcers are common, resource intensive and have negative impacts on patients' wellbeing. Evidence-based decision-making, substantiated by high quality evidence such as from systematic reviews, is widely advocated for improving patient care and healthcare efficiency. Consequently, we set out to classify and map the extent to which up-to-date systematic reviews containing robust evidence exist for wound care uncertainties prioritised by community-based healthcare professionals. METHODS:We asked healthcare professionals to prioritise uncertainties based on complex wound care decisions, and then classified 28 uncertainties according to the type and level of decision. For each uncertainty, we searched for relevant systematic reviews. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full texts of reviews against the following criteria: meeting an a priori definition of a systematic review, sufficiently addressing the uncertainty, published during or after 2012, and identifying high quality research evidence. RESULTS:The most common uncertainty type was 'interventions' 24/28 (85%); the majority concerned wound level decisions 15/28 (53%) however, service delivery level decisions (10/28) were given highest priority. Overall, we found 162 potentially relevant reviews of which 57 (35%) were not systematic reviews. Of 106 systematic reviews, only 28 were relevant to an uncertainty and 18 of these were published within the preceding five years; none identified high quality research evidence. CONCLUSIONS:Despite the growing volume of published primary research, healthcare professionals delivering wound care have important clinical uncertainties which are not addressed by up-to-date systematic reviews containing high certainty evidence. These are high priority topics requiring new research and systematic reviews which are regularly updated. To reduce clinical and research waste, we recommend systematic reviewers and researchers make greater efforts to ensure that research addresses important clinical uncertainties and is of sufficient rigour to inform practice.

Dataset Information

Clinical Application of Chinese Herbal Injection for Cancer Care: Evidence-Mapping of the Systematic Reviews, Meta-analyses, and Randomized Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets