RESUMO
This study was aimed to make a systematic and comprehensive evaluation on clinical efficacy and safety of vertigo treatment with Tian-Ma Gou-Teng (TMGT) Decoction. Articles had been searched in the Chinese Journal Full-text Database, Chongqing VIP Chinese Scientific Journals Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database Online, Wanfang Data and Chinese Medicine Journal Literature Database for randomized controlled trials (RCT) on vertigo treatment with TMGT Decoction. The data retrieval time was from the establishment time of the database until present. Two investigators screened literatures, extracted data and assessed quality according to inclusion and exclusion criteria independently. RevMan5.0.2 was used in the meta-analysis. The results showed that a total of 33 trials were involved, which covered 2922 vertigo cases. The meta-analysis showed that from the aspect of clinical effectiveness, the comparison between Chinese medicine treatment group and modern medicine treatment group (OR = 3.67, 95% CI [2.66~5.07]), comparison between integrative medicine treatment group and modern medicine treatment group (OR = 3.28, 95% CI [2.33~4.62]), the comparison between Chinese medicine combined with other method (such as acupuncture, Tuina) treatment group and other Chinese medicine treatment group (OR = 2.29, 95% CI [1.34~3.91]), therapeutic effect in the experimental group was better than the control group. For the aspect of relapse rate, TMGT Decoction in the treatment of vertigo was better than the control group (OR = 0.27, 95% CI [0.12~0.65]). In the aspect of adverse reactions, TMGT Decoction in the treatment of vertigo was better than the control group (OR = 0.40, 95% CI [0.13~1.24]). For aspects of other indicators such as quality of life, no further analysis was conducted since there was no complete reported literature. It was concluded that the system evaluation results showed that compared with other methods, TMGT Decoction has better clinical efficacy and low recurrence rate, but safety needs to be further eualuated. However, due to the quality of included studies was not high, current evidences cannot be determined to be fully applicable in the clinical practice. But its efficacy advantages are worthy of further research. It especially requires high quality multi-center, large sample, double-blind, RCTs to verify.
RESUMO
0.05).There were significant differences among group B,group D and group E(P
