Dataset Information

An Overview of Systematic Reviews of Using Chinese Medicine to Treat Polycystic Ovary Syndrome.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This review sought to evaluate the strength and validity of the existing evidence for the use of Chinese medicine for the treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

Methods

We retrieved systematic evaluations and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating Chinese herbal interventions in polycystic ovaries, including the use of decoctions or Chinese patent medicines. The quality of these systematic evaluations was assessed using AMSTAR2 tools, and ovulation rate, pregnancy rate, effective rate, serum hormones (testosterone, luteinizing hormone, and follicle-stimulating hormone), and adverse reactions were recorded. Finally, the reliability of each result was evaluated according to the GRADE system. Data Sources. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, CQVIP, and SINOMED databases were searched up to January 1, 2021. Outcomes. A total of 18 publications were included, all of which showed that PCOS symptoms were improved with Chinese medicine compared with control groups. However, most of the evaluations did not have good research designs and had issues with the analysis of their results. The reliability of most outcome measures was rated low or very low, and it is presumed that the reliability of the results was low due to the poor quality of the RCTs.

Conclusions

At present, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that improved efficacy is achieved by the combined use of Chinese and Western medicine compared with Western medicine alone in treating PCOS. Therefore, it is recommended that multicenter, large-sample RCTs adopting standard designs and rigorous methods be carried out in the future while introducing standardized assessment plans for the systematic review of clinical trials so as to improve the quality of the resulting clinical evidence.

SUBMITTER: Wang L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8179771 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common, complex condition that affects up to 18% of reproductiveaged women, causing reproductive, metabolic and psychological dysfunctions. We performed an overview and appraisal of methodological quality of systematic reviews that assessed medical and surgical treatments for reproductive outcomes in women with PCOS. Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL PLUS and PROSPERO) were searched on the 15th of September 2017. We included any systematic review that assessed the effect of medical or surgical management of PCOS on reproductive, pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. Eligibility assessment, data extraction and quality assessment by the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool were performed in duplicate. We identified 53 reviews comprising 44 reviews included in this overview; the majority were moderate to high quality. In unselected women with PCOS, letrozole was associated with a higher live birth rate than clomiphene citrate (CC), while CC was better than metformin or placebo. In women with CC-resistant PCOS, gonadotrophins were associated with a higher live birth rate than CC plus metformin, which was better than laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD). LOD was associated with lower multiple pregnancy rates than other medical treatments. In women with PCOS undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI), the addition of metformin to gonadotrophins resulted in less ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), and higher pregnancy and live birth rates than gonadotrophins alone. Gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist was associated with less OHSS, gonadotrophin units and shorter stimulation length than GnRH agonist. Letrozole appears to be a good first line treatment and gonadotrophins, as a second line treatment, for anovulatory women with PCOS. LOD results in lower multiple pregnancy rates. However, due to the heterogeneous nature of the included populations of women with PCOS, further larger scale trials are needed with more precise assessment of treatments according to heterogeneous variants of PCOS.

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: 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: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:Objective This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) on ovarian mass, weight, sex hormone disorders, and insulin resistance in animal models of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted through a comprehensive search in three databases to find studies testing CHM in animal models of PCOS. Two researchers independently reviewed the retrieval, extraction, and quality assessment of the dataset. The pooled effects were calculated using random-effect models; heterogeneity was explored through subgroup analysis; and stability was assessed through sensitivity analysis. In addition, publication bias was assessed using the Egger's bias test. Results Fifteen studies with twelve mice and 463 rats published from 2016 to 2021 met the inclusion criteria. The results of primary outcomes revealed that CHM therapy was significantly different with control animals in ovarian mass and testosterone (SMD, −1.01 (95% CI, −1.58, −1.45); SMD, −1.62 (95% CI, −2.07, −1.16), respectively). The secondary outcomes as well showed an overall positive effect of CHM compared with control animals in weight (SMD, −1.02 (95% CI, −1.39, −0.65)), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) (SMD, 0.58 (95% CI, 0.19, 0.97)), luteinizing hormone (LH) (SMD, −0.94 [95% CI, −1.25, −0.64)), homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) (SMD, −1.24 (95% CI, −1.57, −0.92)). Subgroup analyses indicated that PCOS induction drug, formula composition, random allocation, and assessment of model establishment were relevant factors that influenced the effects of interventions. The stability of the meta-analysis was showed robust through sensitivity analysis. The publication bias was substantial. Conclusions Administration with CHM revealed a statistically positive effect on ovarian mass, weight, sex hormone disorders, and insulin resistance. Moreover, these data call for further high-quality studies investigating the underlying mechanism in more depth.

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.