Overview of systematic reviews of Chinese herbal injections for sepsis.
10.19540/j.cnki.cjcmm.20230117.501
- Author:
Ying GAO
1
;
Xiao-Kun YANG
2
;
Zhao-Chen JI
3
;
De-Hui PENG
3
;
Xin-Yi XU
2
;
Yi-Fan WU
2
;
Kai LI
4
;
Jun-Hua ZHANG
3
;
Lu-Jia CAO
3
Author Information
1. National Clinical Medicine Research Center of Chinese Medicine Acupuncture and Moxibustion, First Teaching Hospital of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Tianjin 300381, China Center for Evidence-based Medicine,Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Tianjin 301617, China.
2. National Clinical Medicine Research Center of Chinese Medicine Acupuncture and Moxibustion, First Teaching Hospital of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Tianjin 300381, China.
3. Center for Evidence-based Medicine,Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Tianjin 301617, China.
4. the Key Laboratory of Classical Prescription Strengthening Yang of Shanxi Provincial Department of Science and Technology Taiyuan 030013, China.
- Publication Type:Review
- Keywords:
AMSTAR 2;
Chinese herbal injection;
PRISMA 2020;
grading of evidence;
methodological quality;
reporting quality;
sepsis
- MeSH:
Humans;
Injections;
Medicine, Chinese Traditional;
Research Design;
Sepsis/drug therapy*
- From:
China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica
2023;48(7):1962-1975
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
In this study, an overview of systematic reviews/Meta-analysis(SR/MA) of Chinese herbal injections for sepsis was performed to provide references for clinical practice and promote the quality improvement of clinical evidence. Eight Chinese and English databases such as CNKI, Medline, and EMbase were electronically searched for SR/MA of Chinese herbal injections for sepsis from database inception to June 2022. AMSTAR 2, PRISMA 2020, and GRADE system, combined with Recommendations for Clinical Evidence Grading on Traditional Chinese Medicine Based on Evidence Body, were applied to evaluate the methodological quality, reporting quality, and evidence quality of the included articles. Twenty-seven articles of SR/MA were included, containing four Chinese herbal injections(Xuebijing Injection, Shenfu Injection, Shenmai Injection, and Shengmai Injection). AMSTAR 2 checklist showed that the methodological quality of the SR/MA ranged from moderate to very low. Item 2(prior study design) was the critical item with poor scores, and the non-critical items with poor scores were items 3(explain the selection of the study designs), items 10(report on the sources of funding), and items 16(conflicts of interest stated). In terms of PRISMA 2020, items in eight topics with complete reporting of missing>50%, including search strategy, certainty assessment, results of syntheses, certainty of evidence, registration and protocol, support, competing interests, availability of data, code and other materials. The included SR/MA involved 30 outcome indicators. Evidence quality of mortality, APACHE Ⅱ, and safety, the top three outcome indicators, was evaluated, and all of them were graded as the medium level. The lack of random allocation sequence, allocation concealment mechanism, blinding, and trial sample size was the main reason for the reduction of the evidence level. The available evidence shows that Chinese herbal injections can serve as an effective and safe adjunctive treatment for sepsis, which can reduce mortality, inhibit inflammation, improve coagulation function, and regulate immune function, tissue perfusion, and oxygenation in patients with sepsis. However, the quality of SR/MA was suboptimal, and more high-quality SR/MA is needed to provide evidence to support the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal injections in the treatment of sepsis.
