ABSTRACT
In this study, an overview of systematic reviews/Meta-analysis(SR/MA) of Chinese herbal injections for sepsis was performed to provide references for clinical practice and promote the quality improvement of clinical evidence. Eight Chinese and English databases such as CNKI, Medline, and EMbase were electronically searched for SR/MA of Chinese herbal injections for sepsis from database inception to June 2022. AMSTAR 2, PRISMA 2020, and GRADE system, combined with Recommendations for Clinical Evidence Grading on Traditional Chinese Medicine Based on Evidence Body, were applied to evaluate the methodological quality, reporting quality, and evidence quality of the included articles. Twenty-seven articles of SR/MA were included, containing four Chinese herbal injections(Xuebijing Injection, Shenfu Injection, Shenmai Injection, and Shengmai Injection). AMSTAR 2 checklist showed that the methodological quality of the SR/MA ranged from moderate to very low. Item 2(prior study design) was the critical item with poor scores, and the non-critical items with poor scores were items 3(explain the selection of the study designs), items 10(report on the sources of funding), and items 16(conflicts of interest stated). In terms of PRISMA 2020, items in eight topics with complete reporting of missing>50%, including search strategy, certainty assessment, results of syntheses, certainty of evidence, registration and protocol, support, competing interests, availability of data, code and other materials. The included SR/MA involved 30 outcome indicators. Evidence quality of mortality, APACHE Ⅱ, and safety, the top three outcome indicators, was evaluated, and all of them were graded as the medium level. The lack of random allocation sequence, allocation concealment mechanism, blinding, and trial sample size was the main reason for the reduction of the evidence level. The available evidence shows that Chinese herbal injections can serve as an effective and safe adjunctive treatment for sepsis, which can reduce mortality, inhibit inflammation, improve coagulation function, and regulate immune function, tissue perfusion, and oxygenation in patients with sepsis. However, the quality of SR/MA was suboptimal, and more high-quality SR/MA is needed to provide evidence to support the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal injections in the treatment of sepsis.
Subject(s)
Humans , Injections , Medicine, Chinese Traditional , Research Design , Sepsis/drug therapyABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to review several kinds of checklists and statements of studies in human subjects, and to examine reporting methods in order to improve the quality of studies concerning hot springs.<br>For randomized controlled trials (RCTs), “the CONSORT Statement” (Moher et al. <i>JAMA</i> 2001) consisting of 22 terms is the most well known checklist. In addition, different versions and new checklists have been developed depending upon the content of the studies (such as intervention methods) or field of the studies. There is also “the QUOROM Statement” (Moher et al. <i>Lancet</i> 1999) for a systematic review (SR) of RCTs, “the TREND Statement” (Jarlais et al. <i>Am J Public Health</i> 2004) for nonrandomized controlled trials, “the STROBE Statement” (Elm et al. <i>Ann Inter Med</i> 2007) for observational studies, and “the MOOSE Checklist” (Stroup et al. <i>JAMA</i> 2000) as a SR of observational studies. With regard to studies on hot springs, however, terms in the checklists and the statements described above are insufficient or inappropriate because of difficulties in performing such studies in a blinded manner, and the diversity of intervention methods, such as the quellen charakter.<br>Improvement of the quality of reports is important for validation of evidence. In order to improve the quality of assessments and reports of studies on hot springs, it may be necessary to develop a unique checklist based on the above-described statements and checklists.