Park Jongbae, Ernst Edzard
Institute of Health and Social Care Research, Peninsula Medical School, University of Exeter, United Kingdom.
Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2005 Apr;34(5):705-13. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2004.11.005.
To systematically review all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of Ayurvedic medicine for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Computerized literature searches for all RCTs of Ayurvedic medicine for RA in the following databases: Medline (March 1969 to March 2003), Embase (February 1985 to February 2003), AMED (March 1980 to March 2003), Cochrane Controlled Trial Register (October 1997 to March 2003), and the abstract service of Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha (CCRAS; 1976 to March 2003). Hand searches were performed in 1 Sri Lankan and 3 Indian journals and the authors' personal files. Key data of included studies were extracted and reviewed. The methodological quality of all studies was evaluated with the Jadad scale.
Seven studies met our inclusion criteria. Trials tested either Ayurvedic medicine against placebo or other Ayurvedic medicines. In general, patient and physician global assessments on the severity of pain, and morning stiffness were used as endpoints. Of 3 placebo-controlled RCTs, 1 high-quality trial did not show benefit of the active treatment against placebo, while another incompletely reported study indicated beneficial effects of an Ayurvedic medicine. A further incompletely reported study showed no significant difference. The remaining 4 trials were difficult to interpret because they tested an Ayurvedic medicine against other Ayurvedic medicines whose effects were not proven.
There is a paucity of RCTs of Ayurvedic medicines for RA. The existing RCTs fail to show convincingly that such treatments are effective therapeutic options for RA.
系统评价所有关于阿育吠陀医学治疗类风湿关节炎(RA)有效性的随机对照试验(RCT)。
通过计算机检索以下数据库中所有关于阿育吠陀医学治疗RA的RCT:医学索引数据库(1969年3月至2003年3月)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(1985年2月至2003年2月)、联合和补充医学数据库(1980年3月至2003年3月)、Cochrane对照试验注册库(1997年10月至2003年3月),以及印度阿育吠陀和悉达医学中央研究理事会的摘要服务(1976年至2003年3月)。同时手工检索了1份斯里兰卡期刊和3份印度期刊以及作者的个人文档。提取并审查纳入研究的关键数据。使用Jadad量表评估所有研究的方法学质量。
七项研究符合我们的纳入标准。试验将阿育吠陀医学与安慰剂或其他阿育吠陀医学进行了比较。一般而言,将患者和医生对疼痛严重程度及晨僵的总体评估作为终点指标。在3项安慰剂对照的RCT中,1项高质量试验未显示活性治疗相对于安慰剂有获益,而另一项报告不完整的研究表明一种阿育吠陀医学有有益效果。另一项报告不完整的研究显示无显著差异。其余4项试验难以解读,因为它们将一种阿育吠陀医学与其他效果未经证实的阿育吠陀医学进行了比较。
关于阿育吠陀医学治疗RA的RCT数量较少。现有的RCT未能令人信服地表明此类治疗是RA有效的治疗选择。