OBJECTIVE: To evaluate evidence for the efficacy of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) in systematic reviews. METHODS: Chinese (TCM Periodical Literature Database, Chinese Biological Medicine database, Chinese Medical Current Contents, China Hospital Knowledge Database journal fulltext database, Virtual Machining and Inspection System, and Wanfang) and English (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed and Embase) databases were searched. RESULTS: Three thousand, nine hundred and fifty-five articles were initially identified, 606 of which met the inclusion criteria, including 251 in English (83 from the Cochrane Database) and 355 in Chinese. The number of articles published each year increased between 1989 and 2009, Cardiocerebrovascular disease was the most studied target disease. Intervention measures included TCM preparations (177 articles), acupuncture (133 articles) and combinations of TCM and Western Medicine (38 articles). Control measures included positive medical (177 articles), basic treatment (100 articles), placebo (219 articles), and blank and mutual (107 articles). All articles included at least one reference; the greatest number was 268. Six of 10 articles with high quality references demonstrated curative effectsagainst target diseases including upper respiratory tract infection, dementia and depression. Interventions that were not recommended were tripterygium for rheumatoid arthritis and TCM syndrome differentiation for pediatric nocturia. In 10.4% of the studies, the authors concluded that the intervention had a curative effect. The assessors agreed with the authors' conclusions in 88.32% of cases, but rejected 8.94% (54 articles). CONCLUSION: 1) Training in systematic review methods, including topic selection, study design, methods and technology, should be improved. 2) Upper respiratory tract infection, dementia and depression may become the predominant diseases treated by TCM, and the corresponding interventions could be developed into practical applications. 3) Use of non-recommended interventions should be controlled, and there should be more research on side effects.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate evidence for the efficacy of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) in systematic reviews. METHODS: Chinese (TCM Periodical Literature Database, Chinese Biological Medicine database, Chinese Medical Current Contents, China Hospital Knowledge Database journal fulltext database, Virtual Machining and Inspection System, and Wanfang) and English (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed and Embase) databases were searched. RESULTS: Three thousand, nine hundred and fifty-five articles were initially identified, 606 of which met the inclusion criteria, including 251 in English (83 from the Cochrane Database) and 355 in Chinese. The number of articles published each year increased between 1989 and 2009, Cardiocerebrovascular disease was the most studied target disease. Intervention measures included TCM preparations (177 articles), acupuncture (133 articles) and combinations of TCM and Western Medicine (38 articles). Control measures included positive medical (177 articles), basic treatment (100 articles), placebo (219 articles), and blank and mutual (107 articles). All articles included at least one reference; the greatest number was 268. Six of 10 articles with high quality references demonstrated curative effectsagainst target diseases including upper respiratory tract infection, dementia and depression. Interventions that were not recommended were tripterygium for rheumatoid arthritis and TCM syndrome differentiation for pediatric nocturia. In 10.4% of the studies, the authors concluded that the intervention had a curative effect. The assessors agreed with the authors' conclusions in 88.32% of cases, but rejected 8.94% (54 articles). CONCLUSION: 1) Training in systematic review methods, including topic selection, study design, methods and technology, should be improved. 2) Upper respiratory tract infection, dementia and depression may become the predominant diseases treated by TCM, and the corresponding interventions could be developed into practical applications. 3) Use of non-recommended interventions should be controlled, and there should be more research on side effects.
Authors: Brian H May; M Lit; Charlie C L Xue; Angela W H Yang; Anthony L Zhang; Michael D Owens; Richard Head; Lynne Cobiac; Chun Guang Li; Helmut Hugel; David F Story Journal: Phytother Res Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 5.878
Authors: Linda L D Zhong; Guang Zheng; Li Da Ge; Cheng Yuan Lin; Tao Huang; Ling Zhao; Cheng Lu; Ai Ping Lu; Zhao Xiang Bian Journal: Chin Med Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 5.455