Clinical evidence analysis report of Chinese patent medicine in 2020.
10.19540/j.cnki.cjcmm.20220209.502
- Author:
De-Hui PENG
1
;
Xiao-Yu QIANG
1
;
Hai-Yin HU
1
;
Zhao-Chen JI
1
;
Chao-Nan FENG
1
;
Dan-Lei WANG
1
;
Xiao-Lei WU
1
;
Jun-Hua ZHANG
1
;
Bo PANG
1
Author Information
1. Center of Evidence-based Medicine, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Tianjin 301617, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Chinese patent medicine;
evidence-based medicine;
randomized controlled trial(RCT)
- MeSH:
China;
Drugs, Chinese Herbal/therapeutic use*;
Humans;
Medicine, Chinese Traditional;
Nonprescription Drugs;
Quality Control
- From:
China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica
2022;47(9):2315-2321
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
The present study collected, collated, analyzed, and evaluated randomized controlled trial(RCT) of Chinese patent medicine published in Chinese and English journals in 2020, and summarized clinical evidence of Chinese patent medicine in stages, providing references for follow-up clinical research and evidence transformation and application. On the basis of the collection in the Traditional Chinese Medicine(TCM) Clinical Evidence Database System(EVDS), CNKI, Wanfang, SinoMed, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMbase were searched for RCTs of Chinese patent medicine published in 2020, and their research characteristics and methodological quality were analyzed and evaluated. A total of 1 285 research papers on Chinese patent medicine(1 257 in Chinese/28 in English) were included, involving 146 054 patients and 639 Chinese patent medicines, including 526 oral drugs, 68 injections, and 45 external drugs. A total of 412 diseases in 23 types were involved, which were dominated by circulatory system diseases and respiratory system diseases, specifically, cerebral infarction and angina pectoris. The sample size ranged from 20 cases to 2 673 cases, and 57.67% of RCTs had samples sizes less than 100. Single-center trials were the main ones, and multi-center trials only accounted for 4.75%(n=61). In terms of methodological quality, 52.91% of the RCTs had unclear descriptions or incorrect application of randomization methods, and the implementation of allocation concealment and blinding methods has not been paid much attention. In conclusion, compared with the conditions in 2019, the number of RCTs published in 2020 has decreased, and the research interest in respiratory diseases has increased, while the quality control in the process of research design and implementation has not been improved. Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen the methodological training of researchers and promote the output of high-quality research evidence.
