Reevaluation of systematic evluation of Xianling gubao capsules for knee osteoarthritis
- VernacularTitle:仙灵骨葆胶囊用于膝骨关节炎的系统评价再评价
- Author:
Dongdong CAO
1
,
2
;
Jixin CHEN
3
;
Weijie YU
1
,
2
;
Tianci GUO
1
,
2
;
Yu ZHANG
1
,
2
;
Puyu NIU
1
,
2
;
Aifeng LIU
1
Author Information
1. Dept. of Orthopedics and Traumatology，the First Teaching Hospital of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine，Tianjin 300381，China
2. National Clinical Research Center for Chinese Medicine Acupuncture and Moxibustion，Tianjin 300381，China
3. Dept. of Orthopedics and Traumatology，Shaoxing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine，Zhejiang Shaoxing 312000，China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Xianling gubao capsules;
knee osteoarthritis;
efficacy;
safety;
reevaluation of systematic review
- From:
China Pharmacy
2025;36(2):232-238
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE To conduct a reevaluation of the systematic review （SR）/meta-analysis on the use of Xianling gubao capsules （XLGBC） for knee osteoarthritis （KOA）， and provide evidence-based support for the clinical use of the drugs. METHODS Computerized searches including CNKI， Wanfang Data， VIP， China Biomedical Literature Database， the Cochrane Library， PubMed， Embase and Web of Science were conducted to collect systematic reviews （SR） or meta-analyses of XLGBC for the treatment of KOA from the inception to May 31st， 2024. The report quality， methodological quality， risk of bias and evidence quality were assessed using the PRISMA 2020 statement， AMSTAR 2 scale， ROBIS tool and GRADE tool， respectively. A comprehensive quality analysis of the quantitative results from the SR/meta-analysis was also performed. RESULTS A total of five SR/meta-analyses were included. The evaluation results based on the PRISMA 2020 statement showed that one study report was relatively complete （21 points）， while four studies had deficiencies （18-20 points）. The assessment using the AMSTAR 2 scale indicated that the methodological quality of all five studies was rated as very low. According to the ROBIS tool evaluation， the risk of comprehensive bias in all five studies was classified as high. GRADE tool evaluation revealed that among 49 outcome indicators， 5 （10.2%） were rated as moderate-quality evidence （10.2%）， 12 as low-quality evidence （24.5%）， and 32 as very low-quality evidence （65.3%）. The results of comprehensive quality analysis showed that the clinical efficacy， visual analogue scale score， pain relief time， comprehensive indexes of knee joint function， the levels of inflammatory factors and the incidence of adverse events in patients with XLGBC combined with conventional treatment were significantly better than conventional treatment alone （P＜0.05）. CONCLUSIONS Compared with conventional treatment， XLGBC in combination with conventional treatment for KOA may have some efficacy and safety advantages. However， due to the low quality of evidence for the outcome indicators included in the studies， the conclusions should be interpreted with caution.
