4.7 Article

A systematic review and meta-analysis of traditional insect Chinese medicines combined chemotherapy for non-surgical hepatocellular carcinoma therapy

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-04351-y

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Youth Science Fund Project of China National Natural Science Foundation [81403292]
  2. Natural Science Basic Study Project of Shannxi Province [2015JQ8290]
  3. Boosting Project of Xijng Hospital [XJZT13M18]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

On the background of high morbidity and mortality of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and rapid development of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), we conducted a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement to assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of traditional insect Chinese medicine and related preparation for non-surgical HCC. RCTs were searched based on standardized searching rules in mainstream medical databases from the inception up to May 2016. Ultimately, a total of 57 articles with 4,651 patients enrolled in this meta-analysis. We found that traditional insect Chinese medicine and related preparation combined chemotherapy show significantly effectiveness and safety in objective response rate (P < 0.001), survival time extension [12 months (P < 0.001); 18 months (P < 0.001); 24 months (P < 0.001); 36 months (P < 0.001)], amelioration for life quality [QoL scores improvement (P < 0.001); KPS improvement (P < 0.001); AFP improvement (P < 0.001)] and reduction of therapeutic toxicity [WBC decrease (P = 0.04); gastrointestinal adverse reactions (P < 0.001)]. In conclusion, traditional insect Chinese medicine and related preparations could be recommended as auxiliary therapy combined chemotherapy for HCC therapy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available