Jin Xin-Chun, Zhang Li, Wang Yong, Cai Hai-Bo, Bao Xian-Jun, Jin You-Yu, Zheng Guo-Qing
Department of Neurology, The First People's Hospital of Wenling, The Affiliated Wenling Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenling, China.
Department of Neurology, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Front Pharmacol. 2019 Mar 5;10:155. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.00155. eCollection 2019.
Parkinson's disease (PD) is a high prevalence neurodegenerative disorder without a disease-modifying therapy. Up to now, a number of systematic reviews have been conducted to evaluate efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal Medicine (CHM) for PD patients. Here, we aimed to assess the methodological quality and reporting quality of systematic reviews using an overview, and then synthesize and evaluate the available evidence level of CHM for PD. Six databases were searched from inception to September 2018. The literatures were selected and data were extracted according to prespecified criteria. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) was used to evaluate the quality of methodology, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to determine the evidence quality of the primary outcome measures. A total of 11 systematic reviews with 230 RCTs of CHM for PD were included. AMSTAR scores of the included reviews were range from 4 to 9. Compared with conventional western medicine (WCM), CHM paratherapy showed significant effect in improving UPDRS score, Webster scale score, PDQ-39, NMSQuest, CHM Syndrome Integral Scale, and PDSS. However, CHM monotherapy showed no difference relative to WCM according to various outcome measures. Adverse events were reported in 9 systematic reviews. The side effect in CHM paratherapy group was generally less than or lighter than that in WCM group. The quality of the evidence of primary outcomes was moderate (42%) to high (54%) according to the GRADE profiler. The present finding supported the use of CHM paratherapy for PD patients but we should treat the evidence cautiously because of the methodological flaws, whereas there is insufficient evidence of CHM monotherapy for PD.
帕金森病(PD)是一种高发性神经退行性疾病,目前尚无疾病改善疗法。到目前为止,已经进行了多项系统评价,以评估中药(CHM)对PD患者的疗效和安全性。在此,我们旨在通过概述评估系统评价的方法学质量和报告质量,然后综合并评估CHM治疗PD的现有证据水平。检索了6个数据库,检索时间从建库至2018年9月。根据预先设定的标准选择文献并提取数据。使用系统评价评估测量工具(AMSTAR)评估方法学质量,使用推荐分级评估、制定和评价(GRADE)来确定主要结局指标的证据质量。共纳入11项关于CHM治疗PD的系统评价,包含230项随机对照试验。纳入评价的AMSTAR评分范围为4至9分。与传统西药(WCM)相比,CHM辅助治疗在改善统一帕金森病评定量表(UPDRS)评分、韦伯斯特量表评分、帕金森病问卷-39(PDQ-39)、非运动症状问卷(NMSQuest)、CHM综合征积分量表和帕金森病睡眠量表(PDSS)方面显示出显著效果。然而,根据各种结局指标,CHM单一疗法与WCM相比没有差异。9项系统评价报告了不良事件。CHM辅助治疗组的副作用通常少于或轻于WCM组。根据GRADE分析器,主要结局的证据质量为中等(42%)至高(54%)。目前的研究结果支持CHM辅助治疗用于PD患者,但由于方法学缺陷,我们应谨慎对待该证据,而CHM单一疗法治疗PD的证据不足。