Evidence map analysis of clinical research on treatment of pulmonary fibrosis with proprietary Chinese medicines.
10.19540/j.cnki.cjcmm.20241202.501
- Author:
Meng-Jia KOU
1
;
Yang JIAO
2
;
Jie NIU
2
Author Information
1. the Second Clinical Medical College, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Beijing 100029, China.
2. Dongfang Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Beijing 100078, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
clinical research characteristic;
evidence map;
methodological quality assessment;
proprietary Chinese medicine;
pulmonary fibrosis
- MeSH:
Drugs, Chinese Herbal/administration & dosage*;
Humans;
Pulmonary Fibrosis/drug therapy*;
Medicine, Chinese Traditional
- From:
China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica
2025;50(5):1392-1403
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
This study aimed to construct an evidence map and conduct a comprehensive analysis of clinical research literature on the treatment of pulmonary fibrosis with proprietary Chinese medicines published over the past three decades, so as to systematically evaluate the effectiveness and limitations of existing evidence and provide a scientific basis for subsequent clinical practice, research directions, and policy-making. A systematic search was conducted across 7 databases in both Chinese and English from the inception of the databases to June 1, 2024. The clinical research characteristics and methodological quality of the included literature were assessed. A total of 123 pieces of literature were ultimately included, comprising 108 interventional studies, 3 observational studies, 10 secondary study, and 2 expert consensuses. These studies involved 33 kinds of proprietary Chinese medicines, with Danhong Injection being the most widely used. Most studies had a duration of 1-3 months and a sample size ranging from 50 to 100 cases, and they were often used in combination with steroids or conventional western medicine. There was a common phenomenon of off-label use of proprietary Chinese medicines. The main outcome indicators included pulmonary function, blood gas analysis, and total effective rate, with issues such as insufficient safety reporting, lack of distinctive traditional Chinese medicine(TCM) features, absence of long-term outcome indicators, and strong subjective evaluation. In terms of methodological quality assessment, randomized controlled trial(RCT) had biases in randomization and outcome indicator measurement and a risk of selective reporting. Meta-analysis lacked reporting on protocol registration, literature exclusion lists, and disclosure of conflicts of interest. Expert consensuses lacked standards in terms of rigor, scientific basis, and applicability. The quality of clinical research evidence on the treatment of pulmonary fibrosis with proprietary Chinese medicines urgently needs improvement. It is recommended that future research should pay more attention to the scientific and rigorous design to enhance the standardization and reproducibility of the research. At the same time, it should integrate TCM theories to establish an outcome indicator evaluation system suitable for the treatment of pulmonary fibrosis with proprietary Chinese medicines, so as to fully explore the potential of proprietary Chinese medicines in treating pulmonary fibrosis.
