RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this meta-analysis was to systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) formula Bushen Huoxue Decoction (BSHXD) in treating coronary heart disease (CHD). METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTS) of BSHXD in treating CHD were searched until March 2020, through six electronic databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang, SinoMed, and VIP. This study used the Cochrane Risk Test bias tool in the Cochrane Handbook to assess the quality of the methodology. Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 was used to analyze the results. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria were applied in the classification of evidence quality. RESULTS: Ten RCTs involving 901 patients were finally included in this meta-analysis. It revealed that the effectiveness of BSHXD in treating CHD was significantly better than that of the conventional western medicine (CWM) treatment (P < 0.00001). The effective rate of BSHXD treatment group on ECG was also significantly higher than that of CWM group (P < 0.00001). The low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was decreased in the treatment groups compared with those in the control groups (P < 0.00001). There was also a reduction in frequency and duration of angina pectoris (P < 0.00001). There were no significant differences in TC level (P=0.08), TG level (P=0.86), and HDL level (P=0.76) between the treatment and control groups. Five studies had informed adverse events, including nausea and diarrhea. CONCLUSION: Our findings laid the foundation to the use of TCM Formula BSHXD in combination with conventional western medicine for treating CHD. However, due to the limitation of the quality of the included researches, in addition to potential reporting bias, the above conclusions still need verification by higher-quality and better-designed studies.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is widely integrated into cancer care in China. An overview in 2011 identified 2384 randomized and non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs, non-RCTs) on TCM for cancer published in the Chinese literature. This article summarizes updated evidence of RCTs on TCM for cancer care. METHODS: We searched 4 main Chinese databases: China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, SinoMed, and Wanfang. RCTs on TCM used in cancer care were analyzed in this bibliometric study. RESULTS: Of 5834 RCTs (477 157 cancer patients), only 62 RCTs were indexed in MEDLINE. The top 3 cancers treated were lung, stomach, and breast cancer. About 4752 RCTs (81.45%) tested TCM combined with conventional treatment, and 1082 RCTs (18.55%) used TCM alone for treating symptoms and side-effects. Herbal medicine was the most frequently used TCM modality (5087 RCTs; 87.20%). The most frequently reported outcome was symptom improvement (3712 RCTs; 63.63%) followed by quality of life (2725 RCTs; 46.71%), and biomarkers (2384 RCTs; 40.86%). The majority of RCTs (4051; 69.44%) concluded there were beneficial effects using either TCM alone or TCM plus conventional treatment compared with conventional treatment. CONCLUSION: Substantial randomized trials demonstrated different types/stages of cancer were treated by various TCM modalities, alone or in combination with conventional medicine. Further evaluation on the effects and safety of TCM modalities focusing on outcomes such as quality of life is required.