Coxeter P D, Schluter P J, Eastwood H L, Nikles C J, Glasziou P P
Herbal Medicines Research and Education Center, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Complement Ther Med. 2003 Dec;11(4):215-22. doi: 10.1016/s0965-2299(03)00122-5.
To investigate the effectiveness of valerian for the management of chronic insomnia in general practice.
Valerian versus placebo in a series of n-of-1 trials, in Queensland, Australia.
Of 42 enrolled patients, 24 (57%) had sufficient data for inclusion into the n-of-1 analysis. Response to valerian was fair for 23 (96%) participants evaluating their "energy level in the previous day" but poor or modest for all 24 (100%) participants' response to "total sleep time" and for 23 (96%) participants' response to "number of night awakenings" and "morning refreshment". As a group, the proportion of treatment successes ranged from 0.35 (95% CI 0.23, 0.47) to 0.55 (95% CI 0.43, 0.67) for the six elicited outcome sleep variables. There was no significant difference in the number (P=0.06), distribution (P=1.00) or severity (P=0.46) of side effects between valerian and placebo treatments.
Valerian was not shown to be appreciably better than placebo in promoting sleep or sleep-related factors for any individual patient or for all patients as a group.
在全科医疗中研究缬草治疗慢性失眠的有效性。
在澳大利亚昆士兰州进行的一系列单病例试验中对比缬草与安慰剂。
42名入组患者中，24名（57%）有足够数据纳入单病例分析。在评估“前一天的精力水平”时，23名（96%）参与者对缬草的反应尚可，但在所有24名（100%）参与者对“总睡眠时间”的反应、23名（96%）参与者对“夜间觉醒次数”和“早晨恢复情况”的反应方面，反应较差或一般。对于六个引出的睡眠相关结果变量，作为一个整体，治疗成功的比例在0.35（95%CI 0.23，0.47）至0.55（95%CI 0.43，0.67）之间。缬草和安慰剂治疗在副作用的数量（P=0.06）、分布（P=1.00）或严重程度（P=0.46）方面没有显著差异。
对于任何个体患者或所有患者作为一个整体，缬草在促进睡眠或睡眠相关因素方面并未显示出明显优于安慰剂。
