Zhong Juan, Lai Dan, Zheng Yun, Li Gang
Hearing Center/Hearing & Speech Science Laboratory, Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China.
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou 646000, China.
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2018 Feb 5;2018:8132798. doi: 10.1155/2018/8132798. eCollection 2018.
The treatment effects and safety of Ma-Huang-Fu-Zi-Xi-Xin decoction for patients with allergic rhinitis have yet to be clarified.
The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects and safety of Ma-Huang-Fu-Zi-Xi-Xin decoction in patients with allergic rhinitis.
We searched PubMed, EMBASE (Excerpta Medical Database), Cochrane Library, Chinese Cochrane Centre's Controlled Trials Register Platform, Wanfang Chinese Digital Periodical and Conference Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) Database, and VIP Chinese Science and Technique Journals Database to collect randomized controlled trials of Ma-Huang-Fu-Zi-Xi-Xin decoction (MHFZXXD) for allergic rhinitis (AR) prior to May 8, 2017. RevMan 5.3 software was used to conduct a meta-analysis. GRADE methodology was applied to evaluate the evidence quality for each outcome.
Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 576 participants (10-78 years old) were included. A meta-analysis revealed that the overall effect of MHFZXXD for AR was not better than western medical treatment (RR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.26-0.65; = 0.0001) for all included studies. However, the evidence quality of these western medical intervention studies was low or very low due to a high risk of bias, small sample sizes, and poor-quality design.
麻黄附子细辛汤治疗过敏性鼻炎患者的疗效及安全性尚待明确。
本研究旨在评估麻黄附子细辛汤治疗过敏性鼻炎患者的疗效及安全性。
检索PubMed、EMBASE（医学文摘数据库）、Cochrane图书馆、中国循证医学中心临床试验注册平台、万方中文数字化期刊及会议数据库、中国知网数据库和维普中文科技期刊数据库，收集2017年5月8日前关于麻黄附子细辛汤治疗过敏性鼻炎的随机对照试验。采用RevMan 5.3软件进行Meta分析。应用GRADE方法评估各结局的证据质量。
纳入6项随机对照试验，共576例参与者（年龄10 - 78岁）。Meta分析显示，对于所有纳入研究，麻黄附子细辛汤治疗过敏性鼻炎的总体疗效不优于西医治疗（RR：0.41；95%CI：0.26 - 0.65； = 0.0001）。然而，由于偏倚风险高、样本量小和设计质量差，这些西医干预研究的证据质量低或非常低。
