Overview of systematic reviews on Kuntai Capsules in treatment of perimenopausal syndrome.
10.19540/j.cnki.cjcmm.20210201.501
- Author:
Xiao-Liang MEN
1
;
Li-Ping ZHAO
1
;
Jie YANG
1
;
Bo LI
2
Author Information
1. Beijing Daxing District Maternal and Children Health Care Hospital Beijing 102600, China.
2. Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Capital Medical University Beijing 100010, China.
- Publication Type:Review
- Keywords:
AMSTER-2;
GRADE;
Kuntai Capsules;
ROBIS;
overview of systematic reviews;
perimenopausal syndrome
- MeSH:
Drugs, Chinese Herbal;
Female;
Hormone Replacement Therapy;
Humans;
Perimenopause;
Syndrome;
Systematic Reviews as Topic
- From:
China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica
2021;46(19):5103-5109
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Kuntai Capsules in the treatment of perimenopausal syndrome. Systematic reviews on Kuntai Capsules in the treatment of perimenopausal syndrome were retrieved from Chinese and English databases from database establishment to August 31, 2020. AMSTER-2 scale, GRADE scale and ROBIS tools were used respectively to evaluate the methodological quality, evidence quality level and bias risk of the finally included systematic reviews. A total of 6 systematic reviews with 28 outcome indicators were included. The results of AMSTER-2 methodological quality assessment showed that one of the six systematic reviews was of low quality, and the other five were of extremely low quality. GRADE scale showed that 28 clinical outcome indicators were evaluated, three of which were intermediate-level ones, and the rest were low-level or very low-level ones. Two evidences of the three intermediate evidences were total efficiency, and the other intermediate evidence was Kupperman score. ROBIS bias risk assessment showed all the included studies were of high risk. The results showed that, Kuntai Capsules were effective in the treatment of perimenopausal symptoms, such as hot flashes and sweating. The improvement of E_2 level was not as good as that in the menopause hormone therapy group, but the incidence of adverse reactions was lower than that in the menopause hormone therapy group. However, the quality of evidence needs to be improved due to the low quality of methodology and high risk of bias. It is suggested that systematic review and reasonable design should be carried out in the future, and attention should be paid to the registration of research schemes. In addition, the research reports shall be prepared according to PRISMA statement.
