An Overview of Systematic Reviews of Chinese Herbal Medicine for Alzheimer's Disease.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Liu N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8664324 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC7523869 | biostudies-literature
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).
| S-EPMC9399720 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStroke is a major health issue worldwide. Since Chinese herbal medicine is widely used for the treatment of stroke, there is a need to evaluate its efficacy as an alternative treatment option. The aim of this paper is to carry out an overview of Chinese herbal medicine for the treatment of stroke by summarizing and evaluating all existing Cochrane reviews.MethodsThe Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched from its inception date to August 2019 using "stroke" and "herbal medicine" or "traditional medicine" as search terms. For the methodological quality assessment of the Cochrane reviews, the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool was used.ResultsEight Cochrane reviews that evaluated the efficacy of herbal medicine for the treatment of stroke were included in this overview. There were 71 randomized controlled trials, with 5770 patients in total. The AMSTAR scores of the Cochrane reviews included in this study ranged from 9 to 11 with a mean score of 10. Three reviews met all the 11-item criteria of the AMSTAR. All reviews presented potential efficacy of herbal medicine for stroke treatment in terms of improvement of neurological deficit.ConclusionThis overview reveals the potential efficacy of herbal medicines for the treatment of stroke in terms of neurological deficit improvement. However, due to the high risk of bias in the reviews' studies, an affirmative conclusion for the recommendation of herbal medicine for clinical practice could not be drawn.
| S-EPMC6938924 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:our study had two objectives: a) to systematically identify all existing systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) published in Cochrane Library; b) to assess the methodological quality of included reviews. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:We performed a systematic search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR, Issue 5, 2010) to identify all reviews of CHM. A total of fifty-eight reviews were eligible for our study. Twenty-one of the included reviews had at least one Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) practitioner as its co-author. 7 reviews didn't include any primary study, the remaining reviews (n = 51) included a median of 9 studies and 936 participants. 50% of reviews were last assessed as up-to-date prior to 2008. The questions addressed by 39 reviews were broad in scope, in which 9 reviews combined studies with different herbal medicines. For OQAQ, the mean of overall quality score (item 10) was 5.05 (95% CI; 4.58-5.52). All reviews assessed the methodological quality of primary studies, 16% of included primary studies used adequate sequence generation and 7% used adequate allocation concealment. Of the 51 nonempty reviews, 23 reviews were reported as being inconclusive, while 27 concluded that there might be benefit of CHM, which was limited by the poor quality or inadequate quantity of included studies. 58 reviews reported searching a median of seven electronic databases, while 10 reviews did not search any Chinese database. CONCLUSIONS:Now CDSR has included large numbers of CHM reviews, our study identified some areas which could be improved, such as almost half of included reviews did not have the participation of TCM practitioners and were not up-to-date according to Cochrane criteria, some reviews pooled the results of different herbal medicines and ignored the searching of Chinese databases.
| S-EPMC3235143 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8281221 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) are often used in managing cancer related symptoms but their effectiveness and safety is controversial. We conducted this overview of meta-analyses to summarize evidence on CHM for cancer palliative care. We included systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analyses of CHM clinical trials on patients diagnosed with any type of cancer. Methodological quality of included meta-analyses was assessed with the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) Instrument. Fifty-one SRs with meta-analyses were included. They covered patients with lung (20 SRs), gastric (8 SRs), colorectal (6 SRs), liver (6 SRs), breast (2 SRs), cervical (1 SR), esophageal (1 SR), and nasopharyngeal (1 SR) cancers. Six SRs summarized evidence on various types of cancer. Methodological quality of included meta-analyses was not satisfactory. Overall, favorable therapeutic effects in improving quality of life among cancer patients have been reported. Conflicting evidence exists for the effectiveness of CHM in prolonging survival and in reducing chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy related toxicities. No serious adverse effects were reported in all included studies. Evidence indicated that CHM could be considered as an option for improving quality of life among patients receiving palliative care. It is unclear if CHM may increase survival, or reduce therapy related toxicities.
| S-EPMC4680970 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9158123 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAcupuncture and herbal medicine have been used as additional treatments for infertility or as an adjuvant treatment of assisted reproductive technology (ART) in infertility. Many systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MA) have been published. This paper reviews the SRs and MA of acupuncture and herbal medicine on infertility to provide evidence for clinical decision making.MethodsA comprehensive literature search of SRs and MA for the effects of acupuncture and herbal medicine on infertility was conducted using nine databases. Two independent reviewers extracted the data of the selected SR and MA and evaluated their methodological quality using the 'Assessment of multiple systematic reviews 2 (AMSTAR2)'.ResultsTwenty-one studies were included in this analysis. Eight studies were published in China, and three studies each were published in the USA, UK, and Australia. Conflicting evidence on the efficacy of acupuncture for infertile women has been reported. Herbal medicine for infertile women undergoing ART, women with anovulation, and women with polycystic ovary syndrome helped improve the clinical pregnancy rate. The methodological quality of SRs and MAs evaluated by AMSTAR 2 was low or very low because the protocol or list of excluded studies were omitted.ConclusionHerbal medicine tended to be effective in infertility, but acupuncture had low evidence of an effect on infertility. The methodological quality of the published SRs and MAs was underestimated because AMSTAR2 is a more rigorous assessment tool than the previous version.
| S-EPMC7903059 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives:Herbal medicine (HM) is attracting attention for treating atopic dermatitis (AD). This overview was conducted to summarize and critically evaluate the current systematic reviews (SRs) on HM for the treatment of AD. Methods:Through comprehensive searches, all relevant SRs on HM for AD published until May 2020 were included. The quality of included SRs was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Moreover, original randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in the SRs were resynthesized to investigate the efficacy and safety of oral HM for AD. The quality of evidence for the main findings was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Results:Nine SRs were included in this overview. HM showed significantly better efficacy in terms of total effective rate (TER), itching and sleep symptom scores, quality of life, and the dose of topical treatment used compared with placebo. HM as a monotherapy and/or an adjunctive therapy to conventional medication (CM) showed significantly better results on the efficacy, symptom relief, and some laboratory parameters related to the inflammatory response. The methodological quality was generally low. When 58 original RCTs were reanalyzed, HM showed significantly lower SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) score and higher TER than the placebo or CM. In terms of the safety profile, HM was not significantly different from the placebo and was better than CM. The quality of evidence ranged from "moderate" to "very low." Conclusion:The results suggested that HM as a monotherapy or an adjunctive therapy is promising for the treatment of AD. However, due to low methodological quality and low quality of evidence, further rigorous, well-designed, high-quality SRs, and RCTs are needed to make clinical recommendations on HM use.
| S-EPMC7382724 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4706264 | biostudies-literature