4.7 Review

Dang Shen [Codonopsis pilosula (Franch.) Nannf] Herbal Formulae for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

期刊

PHYTOTHERAPY RESEARCH
卷 29, 期 2, 页码 167-186

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ptr.5248

关键词

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; COPD; Dang shen; Codonopsis pilosula; herbal formulae; systematic review

资金

  1. Guangdong Provincial Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of Dang shen [Codonopsis pilosula (Franch.) Nannf., root] formulae for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). English and Chinese databases were searched, and 48 randomized controlled trials were included. Dang shen formulae improved lung function forced expiratory volume in 1s compared with conventional pharmacotherapy (CP) [mean difference (MD) 0.22L, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13-0.31, p<0.001, I-2=5%] and quality of life (St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire) compared with placebo (MD -7.19, 95% CI -10.82 to -3.56, p<0.001, I-2=0%) and when combined with CP versus CP (MD -9.05, 95% CI -12.72 to -5.38, p<0.001, I-2=89%). Dang shen formulae also increased distance walked in 6min when combined with CP versus CP alone (MD 51.43m, 95% CI 30.06-72.80, p<0.001, I-2=27%) and reduced frequency/days with COPD exacerbations. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane tool. Methodological shortfalls were identified. Adverse events were low and not different between intervention and control groups. Thirty-three events were reported, including gastrointestinal upset, dry mouth, and insomnia. Dang shen formulae appear to improve some aspects of the included COPD outcomes. However, owing to methodological flaws, the current evidence is inadequate to support the routine use of Dang shen formulae outside of Chinese medicine practice. However, these results justify further investigation. Copyright (c) 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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