[Analysis of adverse events and influencing factors in randomized controlled trials of oral Chinese medicine published in English].

In order to analyze the incidence of adverse events(AE) and evaluate the related influencing factors in randomized controlled trials(RCTs) of oral Chinese medicine which published in English, Medline, EMbase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials(CENTRAL) database were searched. Oral Chinese medicine RCTs published in English from January 2009 to July 2018 were collected to extract the basic characteristics, subjects, intervention characteristics and AE information. The AE incidence of each study was merged by using Meta analysis. Finally, 218 RCTs were included, of which 28.4% did not report any AE. A total of 1 634 AE occurred in 103 oral Chinese medicine groups, and the total incidence of AE was 11.2%(95%CI[10.7%, 11.7%]). The highest incidence of AE came to blood routine laboratory abnormalities, 8.0%(95%CI[6.6%, 9.7%]), followed by neurological and psychiatric systems 7.9%(95%CI[6.6%, 9.5%]), digestive system 7.8%(95%CI[6.8%, 8.9%]) and liver function abnormalities 7.6%(95%CI[6.4%, 8.9%]). Among the oral dosage forms, tablets and granules had the highest incidence of AEs, while decoction and oral liquids had the lowest incidence. The combination of oral Chinese medicine and Western medicine had the highest incidence of AE. As the medication course increased, the incidence of AE increased accordingly. The incidence of AE in children was higher than that in adults. Based on the analysis results, the higher AE incidence of oral Chinese medicine was in the neuropsychiatric system, gastrointestinal system and liver function abnormalities. The incidence of AE was related to the dosage form, drug combination, medication duration, and patient age. We should pay attention to the AE in children due to modern dosage forms of traditional Chinese medicine, combination of Chinese and Western medicine, and long course of medication.

[Interpretation and prospect of clinical practice guideline on traditional Chinese medicine therapy alone or combined with antibiotics for sepsis].

Clinical practice guideline on traditional Chinese medicine therapy alone or combined with antibiotics for sepsis is strictly in accordance with the latest diagnostic criteria for sepsis (sepsis-3) for the treatment of septic patients at different stages through syndrome differentiation. At present, the abuse of antibiotics and the prevalence of drug-resistant bacteria are very serious, without effective solutions. Thus, this is the first time to focus on traditional Chinese medicine combined with antibiotics to treat sepsis, in order to minimize the incidence of drug-resistant bacteria. This Guideline tends to systematically analyze the sepsis period, septic shock period as well as different clinical symptoms and traditional Chinese medicine measures for organ dysfunction in the sepsis process. By analyzing and interpreting the Guideline systematically, the clinicians could understand its purpose, significance and core ideas more thoroughly, and grasp the recommended specific interventions as well as their advantages and disadvantages, hoping to better implement the Guideline, provide guidance to clinicians and standardize the treatment of sepsis by traditional Chinese medicine.

[Clinical application evaluation and revision suggestions of clinical practice guideline on traditional Chinese medicine therapy alone or combined with antibiotics for sepsis].

To investigate the clinical application of clinical practice guideline on traditional Chinese medicine therapy alone or combined with antibiotics for sepsis, in order to promote the follow-up revision and further promotion of the Guidelines. Copies of 500 application evaluation questionnaire and 500 copies of applicability evaluation questionnaire were given to the clinicians who had used this Guideline in China, both in a form of registered questionnaire, and a database was established by Excel 2016 for descriptive statistical analysis. Copies of 211 application evaluation questionnaire and 211 copies of applicability evaluation questionnaire were collected. We can conclude from the survey that we should adjust the whole content and structure on the basis of better evaluation of the present recommendation scheme, update the prescription selection and clinical evidence of the recommendation scheme, and put forward the improvement measures for the hindrance factors in the application of the Guideline. Furthermore, in order to promote the Guideline more clearly, we should strengthen the doctor-patient education, improve guidance quality and increase the publicity, providing basis for the implementation and promotion strategies of the Guideline.

Randomized controlled trials of Chinese herbal medicine published in English from 2010 to 2019: a bibliometrics study.

BACKGROUND: As the use of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) in the international market increases, the number of clinical studies including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CHM which published in international journals has also increased. Using bibliometrics, we systematically and comprehensively analyzed the research status of CHM RCTs published in English during the period of 2010 to 2019. METHODS: Electronic searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were undertaken. CHM RCTs published in English between January 2010 and December 2019 were included. We randomly selected 20% from the eligible articles. Descriptive statistical analysis was carried out by extracting information on general information, characteristics of the study participants, interventions, outcomes, and risk of bias assessment of included RCTs. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-seven CHM RCTs published in English were included in our study. Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine was the journal which published most of the relevant papers (22.0%). A total of 45,774 participants were included, sample size ranged from 12 to 3,143 (median: 115). The most common disease was the circulatory diseases (n=36, 15.9%). Decoction was the most common dosage form (28.2%), and "CHM vs. placebo" was the most common type of control (36.1%). The median of the total number of outcomes was 4 (range, 1-14), 92 (40.5%) did not clearly specify any primary outcome, 56 (24.7%) did not report any adverse event, 41 (18.1%) and 68 (30.0%) reported traditional Chinese medicine (TCM)-specific outcomes and quality of life, respectively. Eighty-five (37.4%) did not report sufficient information about the random sequence generation process, 100 (44.1%) used the adequate allocation concealment, 92 (40.5%) blinded participants and key study personnel, and 24 (10.6%) blinded outcome assessors. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provided insight into the research status regarding CHM RCTs published in English during the past decade, this study may be helpful in understanding research trends in this field.