Dataset Information

An evidence mapping of systematic reviews and meta-analysis on traditional Chinese medicine for ulcerative colitis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has been a proposed treatment option for ulcerative colitis (UC), however it has been difficult to understand the breadth and depth of evidence as various Chinese medicine therapies may produce effects differently. The aim of this evidence mapping is to visually understand the available evidence in the use of TCM in the treatment of UC, and to identify gaps in evidence to inform priorities of future research.

Methods

A systematic electronic literature search of six databases were performed to identify systematic reviews (SRs) on different Chinese medicine therapies in the treatment in UC. Methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed using AMSTAR 2.

Results

The mapping was based on 73 SRs, which included nine interventions that met eligibility criteria. The quality of the included SRs was very low. The diseases stages of patients with UC varied greatly, from active to remission, to non-acute outbreak, to not reported. The results mostly favored the method of intervention. Oral administration combined with enema was the most widely used route of administration in secondary research.

Conclusion

Based on the current evidence, the treatment of UC with TCM can only be recommended cautiously. A majority of included SRs did not report the location of the disease, the disease classification, and the route of administration of the intervention. Further research is needed on the effectiveness of Chinese medicine alone in the treatment of UC. The effectiveness of combined Chinese and conventional medicine combined with different routes of administration cannot be confirmed. Attention should be paid to the methodological quality of the systematic review. Unifies the outcome indicators used in the evaluation of effectiveness.

SUBMITTER: Sun YX

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8439020 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has already spread around the world. The modality of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) combined with Western medicine (WM) approaches is being used to treat COVID-19 patients in China. Several systematic reviews (SRs) are available highlighting the efficacy and safety of TCM combined with WM approaches in COVID-19 patients. However, their evidence quality is not completely validated. Purpose: We aimed to assess the methodological quality and the risk of bias of the included SRs, assess the evidence quality of outcomes, and present their trends and gaps using the evidence mapping method. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, CBM, and Wanfang Data were searched from inception until March 2021 to identify SRs pertaining to the field of TCM combined with WM approaches for COVID-19. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2), the risk of bias of the included SRs was assessed with the Risk of Bias in Systematic Review (ROBIS) tool, and the evidence quality of outcomes was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Results: In total, 23 SRs were found eligible. Twenty-one were rated of moderate confidence by AMSTAR 2, while 12 were rated at low risk using the ROBIS tool. In addition, most outcomes were graded as having moderate quality using the GRADE system. We found that the combined use of TCM and WM approaches could improve the CT recovery rate, effective rate, viral nucleic acid negative conversion rate, and the disappearance rate of fever, cough, and shortness of breath. Also, these approaches could decrease the conversion rate from mild to critical, white blood cell counts, and lymphocyte counts and shorten the time to viral assay conversion and the length of hospital stay. Conclusion: TCM combined with WM approaches had advantages in efficacy, laboratory, and clinical symptom outcomes of COVID-19, but the methodological deficiencies of SRs should be taken into consideration. Therefore, to better guide clinical practice in the future, the methodological quality of SRs should still be improved, and high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies should also be carried out.

Project description:Objective: The aim of this study is to critically appraise whether published systematic reviews/meta-analyses of traditional Chinese medicine for adults with ischemic stroke are of sufficient quality and to rate the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Method: A literature search was performed in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and SinoMed databases by March 2022. The inclusion criteria were systematic reviews/meta-analyses of traditional Chinese medicine in adults who suffered from ischemic stroke. A Measurement Tool to Access Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Abstract (PRISMA-A) statements were used to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the included reviews. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was utilized to assess each report’s evidence level. Results: Of the 1,908 titles and abstracts, 83 reviews met the inclusion criteria. These studies were published between 2005 and 2022. The results of AMSTAR-2 showed that 51.4% of the items were reported, but the registration, reasons for the inclusion of study design, the list of excluded studies, and funding information were ignored in the majority of the reviews. The results of PRISMA-A showed that 33.9% of items were reported, and the information on registration, limitation, and funding was not available in many publications. The assessment of the evidence with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation showed that more than half (52/83) of the included studies had either low or very low levels of evidence. Conclusion: The reporting quality in the abstract of systematic reviews/meta-analyses on traditional Chinese medicine for ischemic stroke is poor and does not facilitate timely access to valid information for clinical practitioners. Although the methodological quality is of a medium level, this evidence lacks certainty, especially with a high risk of bias in individual studies.

Project description:Chronic bronchitis (CB) is a common clinical chronic respiratory disease, which has a high incidence in the middle aged and elderly population. With the development of the disease, the number of acute attacks becomes more and more frequent, which leads to the continuous decrease of lung function. If not treated in time, it will lead to a variety of complications and seriously affect the quality of life of patients. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) or TCM combined with western medicine is highly effective in the treatment of CB disease. In recent years, there are many systematic reviews on the use of TCM therapy in the treatment of CB, and the efficacy and safety of TCM in the treatment of CB diseases are evaluated. The aim of this study was to re-evaluate the Meta analysis/Systematic reviews (MAs/SRs) of TCM for the treatment of CB, aiming to provide a clinical basis for the treatment of CB by TCM. Retrieval among Chinese and English databases such as China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang database, China Scientific Journals Database, SinoMed, PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library and EMbase, etc. were conducted within the duration from database establish Tion date to March 2023.The included research was independently conducted by 2 researchers for literature screening, data extraction, and quality evaluation. The AMSTAR 2 scale was used to evaluate the quality of the report, the PRISMA 2020 statement evaluated the quality of the report, the ROBIS tool evaluated the risk of bias, and the GRADE quality evaluation tool evaluated the quality of the evidence. Fifteen MAs/SRs were included, for a total of 224 studies involving 20,710 patients with CB. The 15 studies included in AMSTAR 2 are of very low quality. The ROBIS evaluation results showed that 8 MAs/SRs were considered to have high risk and 7 with low risk. The PRISMA 2020 report quality showed evaluation results of the included studies scores between 24 and 30, among them 13 with high quality and 2 with low quality. The GRADE system results showed that, within 70 outcome indicators, only 14 of them have moderate quality for evidence, with 31 for low quality, 25 for very low quality, and none for high quality. The MAs/SRs methodological quality of using TCM for treatment CB is generally poor, the quality of reports as well as evidence are generally low, and the risk of bias is high, therefore we should treat these results with caution.