Efficacy and safety of retention enema with traditional Chinese medicine for ulcerative colitis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of retention enema with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for ulcerative colitis (UC) through a meta-analysis of published studies. METHODS: Literatures were retrieved from five electronic databases. Quality evaluation and meta-analysis were respectively conducted using the Cochrane collaboration and RevMan5.3. Overall quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE system. Effect sizes were pooled using random effect models. RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs were included. Compared with routine pharmacotherapies (RPs), TCM enema exhibited a statistically significant difference in clinical efficacy and reduction of the recurrence rate. The results of qualitative description for other endpoints, such as improvements in anabrosis, ulcer, diarrhea, and hematochezia, suggested that TCM enema had better efficacy than RPs. Furthermore, the incidence of side effects in TCM was lower than that in RPs. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis confirmed the efficacy and safety of TCM enema for improving UC symptoms. However, further well-designed researches are needed.

Efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine for chronic gastritis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: To systematically evaluate efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in treating chronic gastritis (CG). METHODS: Data sources from PubMed, Embase, Springer Link, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Scientific Journals Database, Chinese Biomedicine Database, and Wan-fang database were searched up to July 5, 2018. Review Manager software version 5.3, the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation profiler software were conducted for this meta-analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen studies involving 1673 participants (906 vs 767) were included in this study. Pooled data showed significant statistical differences between TCM groups and current routine pharmacotherapy (RP) groups in overall clinical efficacy (odds ratio [OR] 4.65; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.29, 6.56; P < .00001), efficacy under endoscopy (OR 2.46; 95% CI 1.12, 5.43; P = .03), stomach distension (mean difference [MD] -0.37; 95% CI -0.56, -0.19; P < .0001), stomachache (standardized MD [SMD] -0.80; 95% CI -1.45, -0.14; P = .02), and belching (SMD -2.00; 95% CI -3.80, -0.20; P = .03). However, acid regurgitation (SMD -0.71; 95% CI -1.69, 0.28; P = .16) and anorexia (SMD -0.75; 95% CI -2.30, 0.80; P = .35) showed no significant statistical differences between 2 groups. In addition, incidence of adverse reactions of TCM groups was lower than that of RP groups. CONCLUSION: Evidence from this meta-analysis suggests that TCM could be more efficacious than current RP in treating CG. But further standardized research of rigorous design should be needed to further validate its efficacy.