4.5 Review

Oral ginseng formulae for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review

Journal

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
Volume 105, Issue 2, Pages 165-176

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2010.11.007

Keywords

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; COPD; Chinese herbal medicine; Ginseng formulae; Systematic review

Funding

  1. RMIT University, Australia
  2. National Health & Medical Research Council [616609]
  3. National Institute of Complementary Medicine, Australia
  4. Guangdong Provincial Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, China

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ginseng alone or combined with other herbs has been increasingly used for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral Ginseng formulae for stable COPD. Four English databases and three Chinese databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials. Methodological quality was assessed by Cochrane risk of bias and Jadad's scale. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.0. Twelve studies overall of low quality, involving 1560 participants were included. Results of three studies showed a mean difference (MD) of 0.30 (95%CI 0.02 to 0.58) for forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) improvement of Ginseng formulae versus placebo control. Findings of three studies revealed an MD of 9.43 (95%CI 3.64 to 15.21) of FEV1 % predicted between Ginseng formulae and placebo control. Quality of life (Qol) measured by St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire was improved (MD -10.32, 95%CI -14.99 to -5.65) with Ginseng formulae plus pharmacotherapy versus pharmacotherapy alone in one study. There were no severe adverse events reported. Ginseng formulae for stable COPD patients show promising evidence of lung functions and Qol improvement. However, the degree of benefit is uncertain due to potential risk of bias of the included studies. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available