Overview of systematic reviews/Meta-analysis of Xingnaojing Injection in treatment of intracerebral hemorrhage / 中国中药杂志

ABSTRACT

To overview of systematic reviews/Meta-analysis of Xingnaojing Injection(XNJ) in the treatment of intracerebral hemorrhage(ICH). The systematic reviews concerning XNJ in the treatment of ICH were retrieved from four Chinese databases, four English databases, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry and ClinicalTrail.gov, with the retrieval time set from their inception to September 2020. Following the independent screening and data extraction by two researchers, a measurement tool to assess systematic evaluation 2(AMSTAR 2) and grades of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation(GRADE) system were used to evaluate the metho-dological, reporting and evidence qualities of the 10 included systematic reviews. The results showed that XNJ was superior to the wes-tern medicine or conventional treatment in improving the effective rate and National Institutes of Health stroke scale(NIHSS) score, Barthel index(BI), and Glasgow coma scale(GCS) score and Chinese stroke scale(CSS) score, and reducing the mortality and cerebral hematoma volume, without inducing obvious adverse reactions. In general, the methodological, reporting and evidence qualities of the 10 included systematic reviews were poor. The AMSTAR 2 scores showed that key items No. 2 and No. 16 failed to meet the stan-dard, resulting in poor methodological quality. There was only one outcome indicator graded by GRADE as intermediate quality, 43% indicators as low quality, 42% indicators as extremely low quality, and none as high quality. These available evidences have suggested that the methodological, reporting and evidence qualities of the systematic evaluation concerning XNJ for the treatment of ICH need to be improved. Most evidences support that XNJ was better than the western medicine or conventional treatment in the treatment of ICH, but the methodological quality and the reliability of outcome indicators in relevant systematic review were low. More high-quality studies are still required for further verification.