Clinical evidence analysis report of Chinese patent medicine in 2020 / 中国中药杂志

The present study collected, collated, analyzed, and evaluated randomized controlled trial(RCT) of Chinese patent medicine published in Chinese and English journals in 2020, and summarized clinical evidence of Chinese patent medicine in stages, providing references for follow-up clinical research and evidence transformation and application. On the basis of the collection in the Traditional Chinese Medicine(TCM) Clinical Evidence Database System(EVDS), CNKI, Wanfang, SinoMed, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMbase were searched for RCTs of Chinese patent medicine published in 2020, and their research characteristics and methodological quality were analyzed and evaluated. A total of 1 285 research papers on Chinese patent medicine(1 257 in Chinese/28 in English) were included, involving 146 054 patients and 639 Chinese patent medicines, including 526 oral drugs, 68 injections, and 45 external drugs. A total of 412 diseases in 23 types were involved, which were dominated by circulatory system diseases and respiratory system diseases, specifically, cerebral infarction and angina pectoris. The sample size ranged from 20 cases to 2 673 cases, and 57.67% of RCTs had samples sizes less than 100. Single-center trials were the main ones, and multi-center trials only accounted for 4.75%(n=61). In terms of methodological quality, 52.91% of the RCTs had unclear descriptions or incorrect application of randomization methods, and the implementation of allocation concealment and blinding methods has not been paid much attention. In conclusion, compared with the conditions in 2019, the number of RCTs published in 2020 has decreased, and the research interest in respiratory diseases has increased, while the quality control in the process of research design and implementation has not been improved. Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen the methodological training of researchers and promote the output of high-quality research evidence.

Clinical trials and evaluation of Chinese patent medicine for heart failure / 中国中药杂志

The present study systematically collected, analyzed, and evaluated randomized controlled trial(RCT) of Chinese patent medicine in the treatment of heart failure to provide references for follow-up clinical research design, guideline update, and policy formulation, and promote the improvement of clinical evidence quality. On the basis of the collection in the Traditional Chinese Medicine(TCM) Clinical Evidence Database System(EVDS), CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, SinoMed, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched for RCTs of Chinese patent medicine in the treatment of heart failure from database inception to December 31, 2020. The di-sease type, publication time, sample size, intervention/control setting, course of treatment, evaluation indexes, and methodological quality were analyzed and evaluated. A total of 1 631 RCTs were included, including 1 622 in Chinese and 9 in English. It was first published in 1995, with the largest number of publications in 2016. There were only 56 RCTs(3.43%) with a sample size≥200. Seventy-eight types of Chinese patent medicines were involved, including 49 types of oral drugs and 29 types of injections. There were 34 intervention/control protocols, which were dominated by Chinese patent medicine+conventional treatment vs conventional treatment, accounting for 28.51%(n=465). About 94.0% of RCTs reported the course of treatment, mainly 14-56 days. The evaluation indexes were mainly physical and chemical tests and symptoms/signs, and left ventricular ejection fraction(LVEF) was the most frequently used measurement index. In enumeration indexes, clinical efficacy(response rate) was used the most frequently. Methodologically, 92.0% of the research subjects were rated as high risk of blindness. There were only 13 RCTs(0.80%) reporting registered information. It is necessary to further standardize the design, implementation, and quality control of clinical studies in order to improve the quality of evidence and avoid research waste.

Clinical trials and evaluation of Chinese patent medicine for pneumonia / 中国中药杂志

The present study reviewed the clinical randomized controlled trials(RCTs) of Chinese patent medicine for pneumonia to provide references for clinical research, guideline development, and policy formulation, and promote the quality improvement of clinical evidence. On the basis of the collection in the Traditional Chinese Medicine(TCM) Clinical Evidence Database System(EVDS), CNKI, Wanfang, SinoMed were searched for RCTs of Chinese patent medicine for pneumonia from database inception to December 31, 2019. A total of 1 245 RCTs were included, involving 84 Chinese patent medicines, including 45 oral medicines and 39 injections. Specifically, 85.9% of RCTs had treatment course not exceeding 14 d; 43.3% of RCTs had a sample size of more than 100 cases and 6.1% of RCTs more than 200 cases; 13 types of interventions/controls were included in the RCTs, with Chinese patent medicine + western medicine vs western medicine as the top one used(32.6%). In outcome indicators, symptoms/signs(3 285) and physicochemical detection(2 066) were the most frequently applied. In the methodological evaluation, "allocation concealment" was not clearly described or mentioned in 71.2% of RCTs, and "blinding" in 23.9% of RCTs met the normative standards. Registration and research ethics were not clearly reported. There are many methodological deficiencies in terms of design and implementation in included RCTs, which may impact the reliability and practicability of the results of RCTs. Additionally, key standards were unclear(such as disease classification methods and selection of core outcome indicators). In conclusion, RCTs should give priority to the preciseness and scientificity of the protocol, strengthening quality control of the processes and accelerating the standardized research of key links.

Clinical trials and evaluation of Chinese patent medicine for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease / 中国中药杂志

The clinical randomized controlled trials(RCTs) of Chinese patent medicine in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease(COPD) were reviewed and analyzed to provide references for clinical research, guideline development, policy formulation, and quality improvement of clinical evidence. On the basis of the collection in the Traditional Chinese Medicine(TCM) Clinical Evidence Database System(EVDS), CNKI, Wanfang, SinoMed, Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase were searched for RCTs of Chinese patent medicine for COPD as a source of clinical evidence from database inception to December 31, 2019. The publication time, sample size, intervention and control measures, course of treatment, outcome indicators, and methodological quality of the trials were analyzed and evaluated. A total of 733 RCTs of Chinese patent medicine for COPD were included, among which 228 RCTs had a sample size higher than 100, accounting for 31.1% of total RCTs. Eighty-eight Chinese patent medicines were involved, including 40 oral medicines and 48 injections. A total of 327 RCTs mentioned intervention and control measures(Chinese patent medicine + conventional treatment vs conventional treatment), accounting for 43.0%. In addition, 94.40% of the RCTs reported the course of treatment, and 53.20% of the RCTs determined 8-14 d as the intervention course. The evaluation indicators adopted were numerous, among which physicochemical indicators(70.57%) and symptoms/signs(24.35%) were the most frequently employed. The operation of allocation concealment and blinding was not standard. Registration and the procedure related to ethics were mostly missing. The results indicate that there are prominent methodological problems in the clinical trials of Chinese patent medicine in the treatment of COPD, affecting the reliability and practicability of the trials. It is necessary to further standardize the design, implementation, and quality control of clinical trials of Chinese patent medicine in the treatment of COPD, highlight the clinical value of Chinese patent medicine for COPD, and improve the quality of evidence.