4.6 Review

Chinese Proprietary Herbal Medicine Listed in 'China National Essential Drug List' for Common Cold: A Systematic Literature Review

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110560

关键词

-

资金

  1. State Administration of Chinese Medicine [201207007]
  2. Program for Innovative Research Team of Beijing University of Chinese Medicine [2011-CXTD-09]
  3. research fund for the outstanding young teachers of Beijing University of Chinese Medicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Chinese proprietary herbal medicines (CPHMs) have long history in China for the treatment of common cold, and lots of them have been listed in the 'China national essential drug list' by the Chinese Ministry of Health. The aim of this review is to provide a well-round clinical evidence assessment on the potential benefits and harms of CPHMs for common cold based on a systematic literature search to justify their clinical use and recommendation. Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, SinoMed, CNKI, VIP, China Important Conference Papers Database, China Dissertation Database, and online clinical trial registry websites from their inception to 31 March 2013 for clinical studies of CPHMs listed in the 'China national essential drug list' for common cold. There was no restriction on study design. Results: A total of 33 CPHMs were listed in 'China national essential drug list 2012' for the treatment of common cold but only 7 had supportive clinical evidences. A total of 6 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 7 case series (CSs) were included; no other study design was identified. All studies were conducted in China and published in Chinese between 1995 and 2012. All included studies had poor study design and methodological quality, and were graded as very low quality. Conclusions: The use of CPHMs for common cold is not supported by robust evidence. Further rigorous well designed placebo-controlled, randomized trials are needed to substantiate the clinical claims made for CPHMs.

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

4.6
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