Suppr超能文献

用于糖尿病的天然产物临床试验评估:一项基于证据的系统性文献综述。

Evaluation of clinical trials for natural products used in diabetes: An evidence-based systemic literature review.

作者信息

Ahmad Rizwan, AlLehaibi Lina Hussain, AlSuwaidan Hind Nasser, Alghiryafi Ali Fuad, Almubarak Lyla Shafiq, AlKhalifah Khawlah Nezar, AlMubarak Hawra Jassim, Alkhathami Majed Ali

机构信息

Natural Products and Alternative Medicines, College of Clinical Pharmacy, Imam Abdul Rahman Bin Faisal University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

First Health Cluster in Eastern Province, Dammam Medical Complex, Dammam, Saudi Arabia.

出版信息

Medicine (Baltimore). 2021 Apr 23;100(16):e25641. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000025641.

Abstract

BACKGROUND RELEVANCE

A plethora of literature is available regarding the clinical trials for natural products however; no information is available for critical assessments of the quality of these clinical trials.

AIM OF STUDY

This is a first time report to critically evaluate the efficacy, safety and large scale applications of up-to-date clinical trials for diabetes, based on the three scales of Jadad, Delphi, and Cochrane.

METHODOLOGY

An in-depth and extensive literature review was performed using various databases, journals, and books. The keywords searched included, "clinical trials," "clinical trial in diabetes," "diabetes," "natural products in diabetes," "ethnopharmacological relevance of natural products in diabetes," etc.

RESULTS

Based on eligibility criteria, 16 plants with 74 clinical trials were found and evaluated. Major drawbacks observed were; "non-randomization and blindness of the studies," "non-blindness of patients/healthcare/outcome assessors," "lack of patient compliance and co-intervention reports," "missing information regarding drop-out/withdrawal procedures," and "inappropriate baseline characteristics." Principal component analysis and Pearson correlation revealed four components with %variability; PC1: 23.12, PC2: 15.83, PC3: 13.11, and PC4: 11.38 (P ≤ .000). According to descriptive statistics, "non-blinding of outcome assessors" was the major drawback (82%) whereas, "not mentioning the timing of outcome assessment" was observed lowest (6.8%). An in-house quality grading (scale 0-24) classified these clinical trials as; poor (67.6%), acceptable (19.9%), and good quality trials (13.5%).

CONCLUSION

Proper measures in terms of more strict regulations with pharmacovigilance of plants are utmost needed in order to achieve quality compliance of clinical trials.

摘要

背景相关性

关于天然产物的临床试验已有大量文献,但尚无信息可用于对这些临床试验的质量进行批判性评估。

研究目的

这是首次基于 Jadad、德尔菲和Cochrane三种量表,对糖尿病最新临床试验的疗效、安全性和大规模应用进行批判性评估的报告。

方法

使用各种数据库、期刊和书籍进行了深入广泛的文献综述。搜索的关键词包括“临床试验”、“糖尿病临床试验”、“糖尿病”、“糖尿病中的天然产物”、“天然产物在糖尿病中的民族药理学相关性”等。

结果

根据入选标准,发现并评估了16种植物的74项临床试验。观察到的主要缺点有:“研究的非随机化和非盲法”、“患者/医护人员/结果评估者的非盲法”、“缺乏患者依从性和联合干预报告”、“关于退出/撤回程序的信息缺失”以及“不适当的基线特征”。主成分分析和Pearson相关性揭示了四个具有变异百分比的成分;PC1:23.12,PC2:15.83,PC3:13.11,PC4:11.38(P≤.000)。根据描述性统计结果,“结果评估者的非盲法”是主要缺点(82%),而“未提及结果评估的时间”的情况最少(6.8%)。内部质量分级(0 - 24分制)将这些临床试验分类为:质量差(67.6%)、可接受(19.9%)和质量好的试验(13.5%)。

结论

为了实现临床试验的质量合规,迫切需要采取更严格的植物药物警戒法规等适当措施。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d44c/8078398/6d863ce3ec0d/medi-100-e25641-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验