Yili Zhang1, Yanming Xie1, Xing Liao2, Qiulei Jia3, Yan Chai4. 1. Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100700, China. 2. Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100700, China. Electronic address: okfrom2008@hotmail.com. 3. Guang'anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100053, China. 4. Department of Epidemiology, University of California-Los Angeles, California 90095, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, many trials have been conducted to investigate the beneficial and harmful effects of Salvia miltiorrhiza depside salts for infusion for treating patients with angina pectoris. It is important to systematically and criticallyevaluate the existing literature into providing a pooled effect to examine outcomes of angina pectoris with Salvia miltiorrhiza depside salts for infusion. PURPOSE: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine the clinical curative effect and safety of Salvia miltiorrhiza depside salts for infusion for angina pectoris and provide clear evidence to inform clinical practice. METHOD: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other four electronic Chinese databases were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. Methodological quality and reporting quality of eligible studies was evaluated by using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and CONSORT for traditional Chinese medicine respectively. Meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3 software. RESULT: Fifty-six randomized controlled trials involving 5503 patients were included. Most of the trials were classified as having an unclear risk of bias because of poor reported methodology. The main outcomes are improvements in angina symptoms, ECG improvement and reduction of nitroglycerin use. CHD mortality or rate of CHD events was not reported in any trial. Meta-analysis showed that Salvia miltiorrhiza depside salts for infusion combined with conventional treatment was better than conventional treatment alone in improving angina symptoms (RR= 1.28, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.31, p < 0.00001), the frequency of angina attack (time/week)(WMD=-1.47, 95% CI -2.16 to -0.78), reducing clinical symptom scores (WMD=-0.55, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.53, p < 0.000011), increasing physical limitation scores (WMD= 7.68, 95% CI 1.48 to 13.88, p = 0.02), improving ECG (RR= 1.32,95% CI 1.27 to 1.38, p < 0.00001) and reducing dosage of nitroglycerin (RR= 1.50, 95% CI: 1.26 to 1.77, p < 0.00001). In addition, Egger's regression tests was found there was publication bias (Kendall' tau= 0.36, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The current systematic review indicates relevant evidence for Salvia miltiorrhiza depside salts for infusion combined with conventional treatments treating patient with angina pectoris. However, the results should be interpreted with caution due to the low methodological quality, the risk of publication bias, lack of important clinically relevant outcomes and inadequate reporting on adverse events of the included trials. International methodological and reporting standards could help researchers conduct well designed trials and generate better evidence for Salvia miltiorrhiza depside salts for infusion.
BACKGROUND: Currently, many trials have been conducted to investigate the beneficial and harmful effects of Salvia miltiorrhizadepside salts for infusion for treating patients with angina pectoris. It is important to systematically and criticallyevaluate the existing literature into providing a pooled effect to examine outcomes of angina pectoris with Salvia miltiorrhizadepside salts for infusion. PURPOSE: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine the clinical curative effect and safety of Salvia miltiorrhizadepside salts for infusion for angina pectoris and provide clear evidence to inform clinical practice. METHOD: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other four electronic Chinese databases were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. Methodological quality and reporting quality of eligible studies was evaluated by using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and CONSORT for traditional Chinese medicine respectively. Meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3 software. RESULT: Fifty-six randomized controlled trials involving 5503 patients were included. Most of the trials were classified as having an unclear risk of bias because of poor reported methodology. The main outcomes are improvements in angina symptoms, ECG improvement and reduction of nitroglycerin use. CHD mortality or rate of CHD events was not reported in any trial. Meta-analysis showed that Salvia miltiorrhizadepside salts for infusion combined with conventional treatment was better than conventional treatment alone in improving angina symptoms (RR= 1.28, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.31, p < 0.00001), the frequency of angina attack (time/week)(WMD=-1.47, 95% CI -2.16 to -0.78), reducing clinical symptom scores (WMD=-0.55, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.53, p < 0.000011), increasing physical limitation scores (WMD= 7.68, 95% CI 1.48 to 13.88, p = 0.02), improving ECG (RR= 1.32,95% CI 1.27 to 1.38, p < 0.00001) and reducing dosage of nitroglycerin (RR= 1.50, 95% CI: 1.26 to 1.77, p < 0.00001). In addition, Egger's regression tests was found there was publication bias (Kendall' tau= 0.36, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The current systematic review indicates relevant evidence for Salvia miltiorrhizadepside salts for infusion combined with conventional treatments treating patient with angina pectoris. However, the results should be interpreted with caution due to the low methodological quality, the risk of publication bias, lack of important clinically relevant outcomes and inadequate reporting on adverse events of the included trials. International methodological and reporting standards could help researchers conduct well designed trials and generate better evidence for Salvia miltiorrhizadepside salts for infusion.
Authors: Yiran Liang; Hong Liu; Yi Fang; Pan Lin; Zhihui Lu; Pan Zhang; Xiaoyan Jiao; Jie Teng; Xiaoqiang Ding; Yan Dai Journal: J Cell Mol Med Date: 2020-12-17 Impact factor: 5.295