Xinke Zhao, Yingdong Li, Mingxia Feng, Kai Liu, Kaibing Chen, Yuqing Lu, Shaobo Sun, Peng Song, Bin Liu
School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Key Lab of Prevention and Treatment for Chronic Disease by Traditional Chinese Medicine of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Syst Rev. 2016 Oct 20;5(1):180. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0353-y.
Chinese herbal medicine has been used to treat hypertension in China and East Asia since centuries. In this study, we conduct an overview of systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicine in the treatment of primary hypertension to 1) summarize the conclusions of these reviews, 2) evaluate the methodological quality of these reviews, and 3) rate the confidence in the effect on each outcome.
We comprehensively searched six databases to retrieve systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicine for primary hypertension from inception to December 31, 2015. We used AMSTAR to evaluate the methodological quality of included reviews, and we classified the quality of evidence for each outcome in included reviews using the GRADE approach.
A total of 12 systematic reviews with 31 outcomes were included, among which 11 systematic reviews focus on the therapeutic effect of Chinese herbal medicine combined with conventional medicine or simple Chinese herbal medicine versus simple conventional medicine. Among the 11 items of AMSTAR, the lowest quality was "providing a priori design" item, none review conformed to this item, the next was "stating the conflict of interest" item, only three reviews conformed to this item. Five reviews scored less than seven in AMSTAR, which means that the overall methodological quality was fairly poor. For GRADE, of the 31 outcomes, the quality of evidence was high in none (0 %), moderate in three (10 %), low in 19 (61 %), and very low in nine (29 %). Of the five downgrading factors, risk of bias (100 %) was the most common downgrading factor in the included reviews, followed by imprecision (42 %), inconsistency (39 %), publication bias (39 %), and indirectness (0 %).
The methodological quality of systematic reviews about Chinese herbal medicine for primary hypertension is fairly poor, and the quality of evidence level is low. Physicians should be cautious when applying the interventions in these reviews for primary hypertension patients in clinical practice.
几个世纪以来,中草药在中国和东亚地区一直被用于治疗高血压。在本研究中,我们对中草药治疗原发性高血压的系统评价进行了概述,以:1)总结这些评价的结论;2)评估这些评价的方法学质量;3)对每个结局的效应置信度进行评级。
我们全面检索了六个数据库,以获取从建库至2015年12月31日关于中草药治疗原发性高血压的系统评价。我们使用AMSTAR评估纳入评价的方法学质量,并使用GRADE方法对纳入评价中每个结局的证据质量进行分类。
共纳入12篇系统评价,涉及31个结局,其中11篇系统评价关注中草药联合传统药物或单纯中草药与单纯传统药物相比的治疗效果。在AMSTAR的11项内容中,质量最低的是“提供预先设计”项,没有评价符合该项目,其次是“说明利益冲突”项,只有3篇评价符合该项目。5篇评价在AMSTAR中的得分低于7分,这意味着总体方法学质量相当差。对于GRADE,在31个结局中,证据质量高的为0个(0%),中等的为3个(10%),低的为19个(61%),极低的为9个(29%)。在五个降级因素中,偏倚风险(100%)是纳入评价中最常见的降级因素,其次是不精确性(42%)、不一致性(39%)、发表偏倚(39%)和间接性(0%)。
关于中草药治疗原发性高血压的系统评价的方法学质量相当差,证据水平质量低。临床医生在临床实践中将这些评价中的干预措施应用于原发性高血压患者时应谨慎。