scholarly journals Cochrane Systematic Reviews on Traditional Chinese Medicine: What Matters–The Quantity or Quality of Evidence?

Phytomedicine ◽  
2022 ◽  
pp. 153921
Author(s):  
Zeqi Dai ◽  
Xing Liao ◽  
L. Susan Wieland ◽  
Jing Hu ◽  
Yongyan Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
What Matters

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 Traditional Chinese Medicine in Cochrane Systematic Reviews: What Matters, Quantity or Quality?

2021 ◽  
Vol 48 ◽  
pp. 101948
Author(s):  
Zeqi Dai ◽  
Nicola Robinson ◽  
Xing Liao ◽  
Susan Wieland ◽  
Tae-Hun Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
What Matters

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 Calling for improved quality in the registration of traditional Chinese medicine during the public health emergency: a survey of trial registries for COVID-19, H1N1, and SARS

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhuoran Kuang ◽  
◽  
Xiaoyan Li ◽  
Jianxiong Cai ◽  
Yaolong Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Specific Information ◽  
Clinical Trial Registry ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Diagnosis Criteria

Abstract Objective To assess the registration quality of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) clinical trials for COVID-19, H1N1, and SARS. Method We searched for clinical trial registrations of TCM in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) on April 30, 2020. The registration quality assessment is based on the WHO Trial Registration Data Set (Version 1.3.1) and extra items for TCM information, including TCM background, theoretical origin, specific diagnosis criteria, description of intervention, and outcomes. Results A total of 136 records were examined, including 129 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (COVID-19) and 7 H1N1 influenza (H1N1) patients. The deficiencies in the registration of TCM clinical trials (CTs) mainly focus on a low percentage reporting detailed information about interventions (46.6%), primary outcome(s) (37.7%), and key secondary outcome(s) (18.4%) and a lack of summary result (0%). For the TCM items, none of the clinical trial registrations reported the TCM background and rationale; only 6.6% provided the TCM diagnosis criteria or a description of the TCM intervention; and 27.9% provided TCM outcome(s). Conclusion Overall, although the number of registrations of TCM CTs increased, the registration quality was low. The registration quality of TCM CTs should be improved by more detailed reporting of interventions and outcomes, TCM-specific information, and sharing of the result data.

scholarly journals Concordance between systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in assisted reproduction: an overview

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariano Mascarenhas ◽  
Theodoros Kalampokas ◽  
Sesh Kamal Sunkara ◽  
Mohan S Kamath
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Reproduction ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Selective Reporting ◽  
Methodological Issues ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Are systematic reviews published within a 3-year period on interventions in ART concordant in their conclusions? SUMMARY ANSWER The majority of the systematic reviews published within a 3-year period in the field of assisted reproduction on the same topic had discordant conclusions. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have now replaced individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) at the top of the evidence pyramid. There has been a proliferation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, many of which suffer from methodological issues and provide varying conclusions. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION We assessed nine interventions in women undergoing ART with at least three systematic reviews each, published from January 2015 to December 2017. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The systematic reviews which included RCTs were considered eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was extent of concordance between systematic reviews on the same topic. Secondary outcomes included assessment of quality of systematic reviews, differences in included studies in meta-analyses covering the same search period, selective reporting and reporting the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Concordant results and conclusions were found in only one topic, with reviews in the remaining eight topics displaying partial discordance. The AMSTAR grading for the majority of the non-Cochrane reviews was critically low whilst it was categorized as high for all of the Cochrane reviews. For three of the nine topics, none of the included systematic reviews assessed the quality of evidence. We were unable to assess selective reporting as most of the reviews did not have a pre-specified published protocol. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We were limited by the high proportion of reviews lacking a pre-specified protocol, which made it impossible to assess for selective reporting. Furthermore, many reviews did not specify primary and secondary outcomes which made it difficult to assess reporting bias. All the authors of this review were Cochrane review authors which may introduce some assessment bias. The categorization of the review’s conclusions as beneficial, harmful or neutral was subjective, depending on the tone and wording of the conclusion section of the review. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The majority of the systematic reviews published within a 3-year period on the same topic in the field of assisted reproduction revealed discordant conclusions and suffered from serious methodological issues, hindering the process of informed healthcare decision-making. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) All the authors are Cochrane authors. M.S.K. is an editorial board member of Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. No grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors was obtained.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document