Traditional Chinese Medicine Injection for Angina Pectoris: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (01) ◽  
pp. 37-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Luo ◽  
Qinghua Shang ◽  
Mei Han ◽  
Keji Chen ◽  
Hao Xu
Keyword(s):  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Angina Pectoris ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Potential Benefits

Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) injection is widely used to treat angina pectoris in China. This overview aims to systematically summarize the general characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) on TCM injection in treating angina, and assess the methodological and reporting quality of these reviews. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and four Chinese databases from inception until March 2013. Data were extracted according to a preset form. The AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists were used to explore the methodological quality and reporting characteristics of included reviews, respectively. All data analyses were descriptive. 46 SRs involving over 57,463 participants with angina reviewing 23 kinds of TCM injections were included. The main outcomes evaluated in the reviews were symptoms (43/46, 93.5%), surrogate outcomes (42/46, 91.3%) and adverse events (41/46, 87.0%). Few reviews evaluated endpoints (7/46, 15.2%) and quality of life (1/46, 2.2%). One third of the reviews (16/46, 34.8%) drew definitely positive conclusions while the others (30/46, 65.2%) suggested potential benefits mainly in symptoms, electrocardiogram and adverse events. With many serious flaws such as lack of a protocol and inappropriate data synthesis, the overall methodological and reporting quality of the reviews was limited. While many SRs of TCM injection on the treatment of angina suggested potential benefits or definitely positive effects, stakeholders should not accept the findings of these reviews uncritically due to the limited methodological and reporting quality. Future SRs should be appropriately conducted and reported according to international standards such as AMSTAR and PRISMA, rather than published in large numbers.

scholarly journals Quality assessment of clinical trial registration with traditional Chinese medicine in WHO registries

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e025218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuan Zhang ◽  
Ran Tian ◽  
Zhen Yang ◽  
Chen Zhao ◽  
Liang Yao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Reporting Rate ◽  
Trial Registration ◽  
Clinical Trial Registration ◽  
Data Set

ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the registration quality of clinical trials (CTs) with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and identify the common problems if any.MethodsThe ICTRP database was searched for all TCM CTs that were registered up to 31 December 2017. Registered information of each trial was collected from specific registry involved in ICTRP through hyperlink. The primary analysis was to assess the reporting quality of registered trials with TCM interventions, which is based on the minimum 20 items of WHO Trial Registration Data Set (TRDS, V.1.2.1) plus optional additional three items recommended by ICTRP, and some specific items for TCM information (including TCM intervention, diagnosis, outcome and rationale). Descriptive statistics were additionally used to analyse the baseline characteristics of TCM trial registrations.ResultsA total of 3339 records in 15 registries were examined. The number of TCM registered trials has increased rapidly after the requirement of mandatory trial registration proposed by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors on 1 July 2005, and the top two registries were Chinese Clinical Trial Registry and ClincialTrials.gov. Of 3339 trials, 61% were prospective registration and 12.8% shared resultant publications. There were 2955 interventional trials but none of them had a 100% reporting rate of the minimum 20 items and additional three items. The reporting quality of these 23 items was not optimal due to 11 of them had a lower reporting rate (<65%). For TCM details, 49.2% lacked information on description of TCM intervention(s), 85.9% did not contain TCM diagnosis criteria, 92.6% did not use TCM outcome(s) and 67.1% lacked information on TCM background and rationale.ConclusionThe registration quality of TCM CTs should be improved by prospective registration, full completion of WHO TRDS, full reporting of TCM information and results sharing. Further full set of trial registration items for TCM trials should be developed thus to standardise the content of TCM trial registration.

scholarly journals Efficacy of Traditional Chinese Medicine Tonifying Kidney (Bushen) and Activating Blood (Huoxue) Prescription for Premature Ovarian Insufficiency: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Hui-Fang Li ◽  
Qi-Hong Shen ◽  
Wen-Jun Chen ◽  
Wei-Min Chen ◽  
Zhang-Feng Feng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Peak Systolic Velocity ◽  
Premature Ovarian Insufficiency ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Ovarian Insufficiency

Context. Premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) is one of the difficult gynecological diseases with complex etiologies. Tonifying kidney (bushen) and activating blood (huoxue) prescription (TKABP) is a popular traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) therapy which is commonly applied for POI. However, its efficacy and safety are still controversial. Objective. We carried out this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of TKABP on POI. Methods. The following eight databases were searched from the establishment to September 30, 2019, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs): PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the Chinese BioMedical database (CBM), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), and the Wanfang database. The quality of evidence was estimated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Results. Twenty-three RCTs involving 1712 patients with POI were included. Compared to hormone therapy (HT) groups, TKABP groups showed a significantly higher total effective rate (RR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.04–1.17; P<0.01, I2 = 32%). In addition, TKABP groups revealed a better improvement in terms of serum follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels, serum estradiol (E2) levels, peak systolic velocity (PSV) of ovarian stromal blood, and Kupperman index (KI) score. However, serum luteinizing hormone (LH) levels and ovarian volume (OV) showed no significant statistical difference. Subgroup analyses showed that herbal paste and 3 months of treatment duration had a greater effect on the improvement of hormone levels. Besides, the occurrence of related adverse events in TKABP groups was lower than that in HT groups. Conclusions. Our review suggests that TKABP appears to be an effective and safe measure for patients with POI, and the herbal paste may be superior. However, the methodological quality of included RCTs was unsatisfactory, and it is necessary to verify its effectiveness with furthermore standardized researches of rigorous design.

scholarly journals Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in articles hand and wrist pathology: a review

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 50-57
Author(s):  
Amanda Yang Shen ◽  
Robert S Ware ◽  
Tom J O'Donohoe ◽  
Jason Wasiak
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
English Language ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Annual Basis ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Abstract Reporting

Background: An increasing number of systematic reviews are published on an annual basis. Although perusal of the full text of articles is preferable, abstracts are sometimes relied upon to guide clinical decisions. Despite this, the abstracts of systematic reviews have historically been poorly reported. We evaluated the reporting quality of systematic review abstracts within hand and wrist pathology literature. Methods: We searched MEDLINE®, EMBASE and Cochrane Library from inception to December 2017 for systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology using the 12-item PRISMA-A checklist to assess abstract reporting quality. Results: A total of 114 abstracts were included. Most related to fracture (38%) or arthritis (17%) management. Forty-seven systematic reviews (41%) included meta-analysis. Mean PRISMA-A score was 3.6/12 with Cochrane reviews having the highest mean score and hand-specific journals having the lowest. Abstracts longer than 300 words (mean difference [MD]: 1.43, 95% CI [0.74, 2.13]; p <0.001) and systematic reviews with meta-analysis (MD: 0.64, 95% CI [0.05, 1.22]; p = 0.034) were associated with higher scores. Unstructured abstracts were associated with lower scores (MD: –0.65, 95% CI [–1.28, –0.02]; p = 0.044). A limitation of this study is the possible exclusion of relevant studies that were not published in the English language. Conclusion: Abstracts of systematic reviews pertaining to hand and wrist pathology have been suboptimally reported as assessed by the PRISMA-A checklist. Improvements in reporting quality could be achieved by endorsement of PRISMA-A guidelines by authors and journals, and reducing constraints on abstract length.

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

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Xin Sun ◽  
Xiao Wang ◽  
Xing Liao ◽  
Jing Guo ◽  
Wen-Bin Hou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Route Of Administration ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Evidence Mapping

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.

scholarly journals Were Traditional Chinese Medicine Injections Efficacious for Angina Pectoris? A Frequentist Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guoying Gao ◽  
Siu-wai Leung ◽  
Yongliang Jia
Keyword(s):  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Angina Pectoris ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Grade Approach

Abstract Background: The efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine injections (TCMIs) for angina pectoris has never been well investigated for lacking quality assessment of evidence. This study aimed to conduct a comprehensive and rigorous network meta-analysis and assess the quality of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations and Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to compare the efficacy of all TCMIs in treating angina pectoris.Methods: Following the protocol (reference: CRD42018117720), randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared one TCMI with another TCMI or conventional treatments on anginal outcome measures (i.e. symptomatic improvement, electrocardiography improvement, symptomatic recovery, and electrocardiography recovery) were included. The risk of bias among included RCTs was assessed with the revised Cochrane’s risk of bias tool 2. Frequentist statistical analyses including subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, meta-regression and publication bias analysis were performed. The certainty of evidence was assessed with the GRADE approach.Results: Totally, 475 RCTs including all 24 TCMIs were identified, while the quality of all but two included RCTs was poor. According to the network meta-analysis, Honghua (Safflower) injection were preferable both in improving symptoms and electrocardiography. However, significant inconsistency showed the intransitivity among indirect comparisons, results in network meta-analysis seemed thus not trustworthy. The quality of evidence was assessed as low or very low.Conclusions: The low-quality evidence reduced the confidence in the efficacious results. Current evidence hardly supports the beneficial effects of TCMIs in treating angina pectoris.

scholarly journals WHO Trial Registration Data Set (TRDS) Extension  for Traditional Chinese Medicine 2020: Recommendations, Explanation, and Elaboration

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuan Zhang ◽  
Liang Lan ◽  
Jacky CP Chan ◽  
Linda LD Zhong ◽  
Chung-Wah Cheng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Health Condition ◽  
Trial Registration ◽  
Baseline Survey ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Registration Data

Abstract Background: Although the WHO Trial Registration Data Set (TRDS) has been published for many years, the quality of clinical trial registrations with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is still not satisfactory, especially about the inadequate reporting on TCM interventions. The development of the WHO TRDS for TCM Extension 2020 (WHO TRDS-TCM 2020) aims to address this inadequacy. Methods: A group of clinical experts, methodologists, epidemiologists, and editors has developed this WHO TRDS-TCM 2020 through a comprehensive process, including publication of the baseline survey, draft of the initial items, three-round of Delphi survey, solicitation of comments, revision, and finalization. Results: The WHO TRDS-TCM 2020 statement extends the latest version (V.1.3.1) of TRDS published in November 2017. The checklist includes 11 extended items (including subitems), namely Source(s) of Monetary or Material Support (Item 4), Scientific Title (Item 10a and 10b), Countries of Recruitment (Item 11), Health Condition(s) or Problem(s) Studied (Item 12), Intervention(s) (Item 13a, 13b and 13c), Key Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria (Item 14), Primary and Key Secondary Outcomes (Item 19 to 20), and Lay Summary (Item B1). For Item 13 (Interventions), three common TCM interventions--i.e., Chinese herbal medicine formulas, acupuncture and moxibustion—are elaborated. Conclusions: The group hopes that the WHO TRDS-TCM 2020 can improve the reporting quality and transparency of TCM trial registrations, assist registries in assessing the registration quality of TCM trials, and help readers understand TCM trial design.

scholarly journals WHO Trial Registration Data Set (TRDS) Extension  for Traditional Chinese Medicine 2020: Recommendations, Explanation, and Elaboration

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuan Zhang ◽  
Liang Lan ◽  
Jacky CP Chan ◽  
Linda LD Zhong ◽  
Chung-Wah Cheng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Health Condition ◽  
Trial Registration ◽  
Baseline Survey ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Registration Data

Abstract Background: Although the WHO Trial Registration Data Set (TRDS) has been published for many years, the quality of clinical trial registrations with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is still not satisfactory, especially about the inadequate reporting on TCM interventions. The development of the WHO TRDS for TCM Extension 2020 (WHO TRDS-TCM 2020) aims to address this inadequacy. Methods: A group of clinical experts, methodologists, epidemiologists, and editors has developed this WHO TRDS-TCM 2020 through a comprehensive process, including the baseline survey, draft of the initial items, three-round of Delphi survey, solicitation of comments, revision, and finalization. Results: The WHO TRDS-TCM 2020 statement extends the latest version (V.1.3.1) of TRDS published in November 2017. The checklist includes 11 extended items (including subitems), namely Source(s) of Monetary or Material Support (Item 4), Scientific Title (Item 10a and 10b), Countries of Recruitment (Item 11), Health Condition(s) or Problem(s) Studied (Item 12), Intervention(s) (Item 13a, 13b and 13c), Key Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria (Item 14), Primary and Key Secondary Outcomes (Item 19 to 20), and Lay Summary (Item B1). For Item 13 (Interventions), three common TCM interventions--i.e., Chinese herbal medicine formulas, acupuncture and moxibustion—are elaborated. Conclusions: The group hopes that the WHO TRDS-TCM 2020 can improve the reporting quality and transparency of TCM trial registrations, assist registries in assessing the registration quality of TCM trials, and help readers understand TCM trial design.Trial registration: Not applicable.

scholarly journals WHO Trial Registration Data Set (TRDS) Extension  for Traditional Chinese Medicine 2020: Recommendations, Explanation, and Elaboration

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuan Zhang ◽  
Liang Lan ◽  
Jacky CP Chan ◽  
Linda LD Zhong ◽  
Chung-Wah Cheng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Health Condition ◽  
Trial Registration ◽  
Baseline Survey ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Registration Data

Abstract Background: Although the WHO Trial Registration Data Set (TRDS) has been published for many years, the quality of clinical trial registrations with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is still not satisfactory, especially about the inadequate reporting on TCM interventions. The development of the WHO TRDS for TCM Extension 2020 (WHO TRDS-TCM 2020) aims to address this inadequacy. Methods: A group of clinical experts, methodologists, epidemiologists, and editors has developed this WHO TRDS-TCM 2020 through a comprehensive process, including the baseline survey, draft of the initial items, three-round of Delphi survey, solicitation of comments, revision, and finalization. Results: The WHO TRDS-TCM 2020 statement extends the latest version (V.1.3.1) of TRDS published in November 2017. The checklist includes 11 extended items (including subitems), namely Source(s) of Monetary or Material Support (Item 4), Scientific Title (Item 10a and 10b), Countries of Recruitment (Item 11), Health Condition(s) or Problem(s) Studied (Item 12), Intervention(s) (Item 13a, 13b and 13c), Key Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria (Item 14), Primary and Key Secondary Outcomes (Item 19 to 20), and Lay Summary (Item B1). For Item 13 (Interventions), three common TCM interventions--i.e., Chinese herbal medicine formulas, acupuncture and moxibustion—are elaborated. Conclusions: The group hopes that the WHO TRDS-TCM 2020 can improve the reporting quality and transparency of TCM trial registrations, assist registries in assessing the registration quality of TCM trials, and help readers understand TCM trial design.

scholarly journals Quality of the Evidence Supporting the Role of Acupuncture for Stable Angina Pectoris: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Min Shen ◽  
Jinke Huang ◽  
Tao Qiu
Keyword(s):  
Angina Pectoris ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Stable Angina ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Stable Angina Pectoris ◽  
Quality Reporting ◽  
Evidence Quality ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: To systematically appraise and synthesize evidence, we conducted an overview of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) on acupuncture for stable angina pectoris (SAP).Methods: Eight databases were searched for SRs/MAs of acupuncture on SAP. The methodological quality, reporting quality, and evidence quality were evaluated by Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system, respectively.Results: A total of seven published SRs/MAs met the inclusion criteria. According to the evaluation results of AMSTAR-2, two studies were considered as of moderate quality; the remaining five were considered as of very low quality. According to the evaluation results of the PRISMA checklist, only one study reported the checklist in its entirety, while others had reporting deficiencies. According to GRADE, a total of 18 outcome indicators extracted from the included studies were evaluated. The evidence quality was very low in three, low in three, moderate in eight, and high in four.Conclusion: Acupuncture may be beneficial for SAP from the currently published evidence. However, this conclusion must be interpreted cautiously due to the generally low methodological quality, reporting quality, and evidence quality of the included studies. More rigorous, more standardized and comprehensive SRs/MAs are needed to provide strong evidence for convincing conclusions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document