OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of Chinese patent medicine (CPM) with the principle of tonifying Qi, promoting blood circulation by removing blood stasis, and resolving phlegm (TQ-PBC-RP) in the management of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from electronic databases and print was conducted. RCTs testing CPMs with TQ-PBC-RP against any type of controlled intervention in patients with stable COPD and assessing clinically relevant outcomes were included. Methodological quality was evaluated with the risk of bias tool according to systematic review handbook 5.0.2. Quality of evidence was estimated by the rating approach developed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group. RESULTS: Thirteen eligible RCTs with 12 oral CPMs were tested. Significant differences between groups in favor of CPMs were not reported in all trials. Most trials included were deemed to be of low methodological quality with poor evidence quality. Because of large data heterogeneity, statistical pooling was not performed for all outcomes. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of CPM in the treatment of stable COPD is not supported by evidence. Currently, evidence from RCTs is scarce and methodologically weak. Considering the popularity of CPMs among patients undergoing COPD, rigorously designed trials are warranted.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of Chinese patent medicine (CPM) with the principle of tonifying Qi, promoting blood circulation by removing blood stasis, and resolving phlegm (TQ-PBC-RP) in the management of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from electronic databases and print was conducted. RCTs testing CPMs with TQ-PBC-RP against any type of controlled intervention in patients with stable COPD and assessing clinically relevant outcomes were included. Methodological quality was evaluated with the risk of bias tool according to systematic review handbook 5.0.2. Quality of evidence was estimated by the rating approach developed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group. RESULTS: Thirteen eligible RCTs with 12 oral CPMs were tested. Significant differences between groups in favor of CPMs were not reported in all trials. Most trials included were deemed to be of low methodological quality with poor evidence quality. Because of large data heterogeneity, statistical pooling was not performed for all outcomes. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of CPM in the treatment of stable COPD is not supported by evidence. Currently, evidence from RCTs is scarce and methodologically weak. Considering the popularity of CPMs among patients undergoing COPD, rigorously designed trials are warranted.