Lee Hye Won, Jun Ji Hee, Kil Ki-Jung, Ko Byong-Seob, Lee Choong Hwan, Lee Myeong Soo
KM Convergence Research Division, Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine, Republic of Korea.
Clinical Research Division, Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine, Daejeon, Republic of Korea.
Maturitas. 2016 Mar;85:19-26. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2015.11.013. Epub 2015 Dec 2.
Danggui Shaoyao San (DSS), a traditional herbal prescription, has long been used to treat menopause-related symptoms, including dysmenorrhea. We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the efficacy of DSS for dysmenorrhea. We searched the following electronic databases through October 2015: PubMed; EMBASE; the Cochrane Library; AMED; five Korean databases (KoreaMed, DBPIA, OASIS, RISS, and KISS); three Chinese databases (CNKI, Wan Fang Database, and VIP), and one Japanese database (CiNii). The Cochrane criteria were used to assess the risk of bias for the individual studies. All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of DSS or modified DSS were included. Data from all articles were extracted by two independent reviewers. Meta-analysis was used to pool the data. A total of 746 potentially relevant studies were identified, and four RCTs met our inclusion criteria. All of the included RCTs had a high risk of bias across their domains. Three RCTs showed favourable effects of DSS on response rate compared with conventional medicine, and a meta-analysis showed that DSS had superior effects compared to analgesics (RR: 1.31, 95%CI, 1.06-1.63, I(2)=73%). One RCT showed a beneficial effect of DSS on pain compared with placebo control. Our systematic review and meta-analysis provided suggestive evidence of the superiority of DSS over analgesics or placebo for dysmenorrhea. The quality of evidence for this finding was low to moderate because of a high risk of bias.
当归芍药散(DSS)是一种传统草药方剂,长期以来一直用于治疗与更年期相关的症状,包括痛经。我们进行了一项随机对照试验的系统评价,以评估DSS治疗痛经的疗效。我们检索了截至2015年10月的以下电子数据库:PubMed;EMBASE;Cochrane图书馆;AMED;五个韩国数据库(KoreaMed、DBPIA、OASIS、RISS和KISS);三个中国数据库(中国知网、万方数据库和维普)以及一个日本数据库(CiNii)。采用Cochrane标准评估各研究的偏倚风险。纳入所有DSS或改良DSS的随机临床试验(RCT)。所有文章的数据由两名独立的评审员提取。采用荟萃分析对数据进行汇总。共识别出746项潜在相关研究,4项RCT符合我们的纳入标准。所有纳入的RCT在各个领域都有较高的偏倚风险。三项RCT显示,与传统药物相比,DSS对缓解率有良好效果,荟萃分析显示,与镇痛药相比,DSS有更好的效果(RR:1.31,95%CI,1.06 - 1.63,I(2)=73%)。一项RCT显示,与安慰剂对照相比,DSS对疼痛有有益效果。我们的系统评价和荟萃分析提供了提示性证据,表明DSS在治疗痛经方面优于镇痛药或安慰剂。由于偏倚风险较高,这一发现的证据质量为低到中等。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016-1-22
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012-5-16
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-4-19
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-1-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-12-22
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-10-19
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009-7-8
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001
J Pain Res. 2023-10-27
J Clin Med. 2023-1-20
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2023-1-3
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022-11-19
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2022-7-31