Clinical trials and evaluation of Chinese patent medicine for pneumonia.
10.19540/j.cnki.cjcmm.20210913.501
- Author:
Zhao-Chen JI
1
;
Xiao-Yu QIANG
1
;
Hai-Yin HU
1
;
Zhe CHEN
1
;
Yi OU
1
;
Chao-Nan FENG
1
;
Lu-Jia CAO
1
;
Jun-Hua ZHANG
1
Author Information
1. Center for Evidence-based Medicine, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Tianjin 301617, China.
- Publication Type:Review
- Keywords:
Chinese patent medicine;
evidence-based medicine;
pneumonia;
randomized controlled trial
- MeSH:
China;
Drugs, Chinese Herbal/therapeutic use*;
Humans;
Medicine, Chinese Traditional;
Nonprescription Drugs;
Pneumonia/drug therapy*;
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic;
Reproducibility of Results
- From:
China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica
2022;47(9):2343-2350
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
The present study reviewed the clinical randomized controlled trials(RCTs) of Chinese patent medicine for pneumonia to provide references for clinical research, guideline development, and policy formulation, and promote the quality improvement of clinical evidence. On the basis of the collection in the Traditional Chinese Medicine(TCM) Clinical Evidence Database System(EVDS), CNKI, Wanfang, SinoMed were searched for RCTs of Chinese patent medicine for pneumonia from database inception to December 31, 2019. A total of 1 245 RCTs were included, involving 84 Chinese patent medicines, including 45 oral medicines and 39 injections. Specifically, 85.9% of RCTs had treatment course not exceeding 14 d; 43.3% of RCTs had a sample size of more than 100 cases and 6.1% of RCTs more than 200 cases; 13 types of interventions/controls were included in the RCTs, with Chinese patent medicine + western medicine vs western medicine as the top one used(32.6%). In outcome indicators, symptoms/signs(3 285) and physicochemical detection(2 066) were the most frequently applied. In the methodological evaluation, "allocation concealment" was not clearly described or mentioned in 71.2% of RCTs, and "blinding" in 23.9% of RCTs met the normative standards. Registration and research ethics were not clearly reported. There are many methodological deficiencies in terms of design and implementation in included RCTs, which may impact the reliability and practicability of the results of RCTs. Additionally, key standards were unclear(such as disease classification methods and selection of core outcome indicators). In conclusion, RCTs should give priority to the preciseness and scientificity of the protocol, strengthening quality control of the processes and accelerating the standardized research of key links.
