4.7 Review

Clinical trials of traditional Chinese medicine in the treatment of diabetic nephropathy-A systematic review based on a subgroup analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF ETHNOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 151, 期 2, 页码 810-819

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jep.2013.11.028

关键词

Traditional Chinese medicine; Diabetic nephropathy; Subgroup meta-analysis; Systematic review

资金

  1. NSFC [81172773, 30872184, 30901242]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ethnopharmacological relevance: The purpose of this study is to systematically evaluate the efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) decoctions with different ingredients in the treatment of diabetic nephropathy (ON). Materials and methods: Papers obtained after the retrieval of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of TCM treatments of diabetic nephropathy through online database (e.g. Medline, CBM, CNKI, VIP, the online database of Chinese medicine, CDFD, CMFD, and CENTRAL FROM Cochrane Library, etc.) as well as research data in our library. They were published between January 2001 and December 2012. According to the categories of the main TCM ingredients, all the cases in the literature were divided into a liver-kidney YIN deficiency group, a QI-BLOOD YIN-and-YANG deficiency group, and a spleen-kidney YANG deficiency group. Stata 11.0 was applied for subgroup analysis. Results: A total of 21 Chinese RCTs were included in this review. The Q values of the three groups were 13.18, 0.25 and 3.27, respectively, P>0.05, and thus, there was no clinical heterogeneity. The combined relative risk (RR) value and its 95% confidence interval were 1.48 (1.37, 1.60), 1.19 (1.06, 134), and 1.33 (1.19, 1.50), respectively, P <0.05. Conclusions: Compared with the qi-blood yin-and-yang deficiency group and the spleen-kidney yang deficiency group, the liver-kidney yin deficiency group has better prospects in clinical application to ensure renal function during the treatment of ON, and this possibility is worthy of further study. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据