ABSTRACT
Acne has several effects on physical symptoms, but the main impacts are on the quality of life, which can be improved by treatment. There are several acne treatments but less evidence comparing their relative efficacy. Thus, we assessed the comparative efficacy of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for acne. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to April 2019, to include randomized controlled trials for acne that compared topical antibiotics (TA), benzoyl peroxide (BPO), topical retinoids (TR), oral antibiotics (OA), lasers, light devices including LED device (LED), photodynamic therapy (PDT), and intense pulsed light, chemical peels (CP), miscellaneous therapies or complementary and alternative medicine (MTCAM), or their combinations. We performed Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects for all treatments compared with placebo and each other. Mean differences (MDs) of lesions count and risk ratios of adverse events with their 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated, and all interventions were ranked by the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) values. Additional frequentist additive network meta-analysis was performed to detect the robustness of results and potential interaction effects. Sensitivity analyses were carried out with different priors, and metaregression was to adjust for nine potential effect modifiers. In the result, seventy-three randomized controlled trials (27,745 patients with mild to moderate acne), comparing 30 grouped intervention categories, were included with low to moderate risk of bias. For adverse effects, OA had more risk in combination treatment with others. For noninflammatory lesions reduction, seventeen interventions had significant differences comparing with placebo and three interventions (TR+BPO: MD = -21.89, 95%CrI [-28.97, -14.76]; TR+BPO+MTCAM: -22.48 [-34.13, -10.70]; TA+BPO+CP: -20.63 [-33.97, -7.13]) were superior to others with 94, 94, and 91% SUCRA values, respectively. For inflammatory lesions reduction, nineteen interventions were significantly better than placebo, and three interventions (TR+BPO: MD = -12.13, 95%CrI [-18.41, -5.80]; TR+BPO+MTCAM: -13.21 [-.39, -3.04]; LED: -11.30 [-18.34, -4.42]) were superior to others (SUCRA: 81, 81, and 77%, respectively). In summary of noninflammatory and inflammatory lesions results, TR+BPO and TA+BPO were the best options compared to others. The frequentist model showed similar results as above. In summary, current evidence supports the suggestion that TR+BPO and TA+BPO are the best options for mild to moderate acne. LED is another option for inflammatory lesions when drug resistance occurs. All the combinations involved with OA showed more risk of adverse events than others. However, the evidence of this study should be cautiously used due to the limitations.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Traditional Chinese Patent Medicine (TCPM) is now being used more and more extensively for primary hypertension in China. However, the comparative efficacy and safety of it need more clarified evidence. Thus, we conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare TCPMs with other interventions. METHODS: We searched China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang Data, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to April 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with diagnosis of primary hypertension that compared the efficacy of TCPMs with antihypertension drugs (ADs). Two researchers screened literature, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias independently. The primary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). The secondary outcomes were adverse effects (AEs), total cholesterol (TC), and triglyceride (TG). We used the Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare interventions and described the categorical variable and the continuous variable as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD), respectively. Besides, we ranked all interventions via the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) values and conducted metaregression with nine covariates as additional analysis. RESULTS: We included 192 studies with 23366 patients diagnosed as primary hypertension in total. For SBP reduction, eighteen interventions were significantly better than AD. Among them, Yinxingye (YXY) + AD (MD = -12, 95% CrI [-16, -8.5]) was superior to others in the rank plot with SUCRA 0.91. For DBP reduction, sixteen interventions were significantly better than AD. Among them, Qinggan Jiangya (QGJY) + AD (MD = -8.7, 95% CrI [-12, -5.5]) and Qiju Dihuang (QJDH) + AD (MD = -8.8, 95% CrI [-12, -5.2]) were superior to others in the rank plot with SUCRA 0.89. To summarize the SUCRA values, we found that QGJY + AD and YXY + AD had the most significant reductions for both SBP and DBP. YXY + AD was the best one for both TC (MD = -1.3, 95% CrI [-1.9, -0.64]) and TG (MD = -0.52, 95% CrI [-0.92, -0.11]) reductions. Considering adverse effects, we found two interventions had significant differences comparing with AD. Among them, YXY + AD was the best one with SUCRA of 0.01. CONCLUSION: In all TCPMs, QGJY + AD and YXY + AD may be the best options for hypertension. Meanwhile, YXY + AD can improve blood lipids in patients with hypertension. However, due to the vague reports of adverse effects and other limitations, more evidence, especially that provided by high-quality studies, is needed to prove the advantages of TCMPs.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To provide evidence for medical management of chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) in China based on comparisons of all clinical practical interventions using Bayesian network meta-analysis. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Wanfang Database (inception to May 2019) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for CIC in Chinese people. Only RCTs that recruited participants aged over 18 and diagnosed with CIC by the Rome II, III or IV criteria were included. We used three outcomes to examine efficacy. The risk ratio (RR) of the responder rate, based on ≥3 spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) per week after treatment, was the primary outcome, and the SBM count per week and the Bristol score (BS) were secondary outcomes. In addition, adverse effects (AEs) were also considered a secondary outcome to evaluate safety. We conducted Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects, and the RR or mean difference with its 95% credible interval was calculated. In addition, we ranked all treatments via their cumulative curves (SUCRA) and assessed the quality of evidence according to the GRADE criteria. RESULTS: We included a total of 42 trials (6820 participants) of 20 grouped interventions that included pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments. For the primary outcome, fourteen interventions were significantly better than placebo, and Probiotics plus Mosapride (PB + MP) appeared superior to others (GRADE quality of evidence: Moderate to Low), followed by Prucalopride (PP) (High to Low) and Electroacupuncture (EA) (High to Low). For SBM, Compound sodium bicarbonate suppository (CSBS) appeared to be best, with an SUCRA value of 90% (High to Low). For BS, Lactulose plus Probiotics (LT + PB) was superior to others (Moderate to Low), followed by Polyethylene glycol (PEG) (High to Moderate). Although all interventions appeared non-significant when compared with placebo in terms of adverse effects, Lactulose plus Mosapride showed greater risk than others on ranking probability. CONCLUSIONS: Given the GRADE assessment, PB + MP, PP and EA may be the priory options with moderate certainty in the quality of evidence for the primary outcome. For SBM, a CSBS may be the best option with moderate certainty in the quality of evidence. For BS, PEG may be the priory option with high certainty in the quality of evidence. However, due to a lack of high certainty in the quality of evidence, caution is needed when recommending the interventions. Because of the limitations, an increased number of trials are required for more accurate results.
Subject(s)
Constipation/drug therapy , Bayes Theorem , China , Constipation/physiopathology , Defecation/drug effects , Humans , Polyethylene Glycols/therapeutic use , Probiotics/therapeutic use , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Suppositories/therapeutic useABSTRACT
CONTEXT: The role of traditional Chinese medicine injections (TCMIs) in diabetic foot (DF) has not been well estimated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical effective rate, safety, and the financial cost of TCMIs in treating DF and ulcer wound healing. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP database, and Wanfang database from inception to May 2018 to find all randomized control trials (RCTs) related to TCMIs in DF treatment. The search items were "Traditional Chinese Medicine Injection" AND "Diabetic foot or Diabetic foot ulcer" AND "random". STUDY SELECTION AND SYNTHESIS: Only RCTs of TCMIs combined conventional therapies versus conventional therapies and that can be quantitatively synthesized were included. Finally, 17 studies and 1294 participants were included after extraction. Two investigators independently extracted and analyzed the data using RevMan5.3 software. RESULTS: The overall clinical effective rate of TCMI groups is higher than that of control groups [RR=1.27, 95CI % (1.20, 1.34), P<0.00001] based on fixed effect model analysis. Regarding motor nerve conduction velocity of median nerve and peroneal nerve, TCMI group showed a significant improvement (MD=3.84[2.28, 5.41], P<0.00001; MD=2.89[0.63, 5.15], P=0.01). Regarding plasma viscosity TCMI group showed a statistically difference (MD=0.27[0.04, 0.49], P=0.02). In terms of blood viscosity at high shear rate, there was an improvement of TCMI group (MD=0.36[0.05, 0.67], P=0.02). However, sensory nerve conduction velocity of peroneal nerve and median nerve showed a contradiction to motor nerve conduction velocity, respectively (MD=2.59[-1.69, 6.87], p=0.24; MD=2.73[-0.96, 6.43], P=0.15). CONCLUSION: The data of this study shows that TCMIs can bring benefits to patients with diabetic foot. However, due to low methodological quality of included RCTs, more rigorous designed RCTs with large sample size are recommended to provide more high-quality evidence.
ABSTRACT
Recently, there is an increasing number of clinical trials on Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) published, but the implementation of Clinical Trial Registration (CTR), Ethical Review (ER), and Informed Consent (IC) in clinical trials of TCM is unclear. This study aims to investigate the status of CTR, ER, and IC in clinical trials of TCM.Clinical trials of TCM published in 10 high-quality Chinese journals in 2016 were selected as a sample. Information of clinical trial registration, ethical review, and informed consent of clinical trials was extracted for analysis. Two authors independently screened the literature and extracted the relevant information.A total of 659 clinical trials met the criteria and were included for analysis. Only 9 clinical trials reported information of clinical trial registration (1.4%). The number for ethical review and informed consent were 156 (23.7%) and 502 (76.2%).Trial registration, protocol approval, and informed consent were not well executed. Especially registration and ethical review of clinical trials in TCM should be carefully concerned by researchers, clinicians, and journal editors. Training on methodology of clinical trial should be strengthened.
