| Literature DB >> 35401779 |
Xingxing Wang1, Jian Meng2, Qing Wu1, Jingjing Feng1, Huiling Jing1.
Abstract
Background: Both traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and Western medicine are widely applied in the treatment of eczema, but there are few reports on integrated TCM and Western medicine for eczema. Objective: This meta-analysis carried out the evaluation on the efficacy of integrated TCM and Western medicine in the treatment of eczema.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35401779 PMCID: PMC8986438 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7202626
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Figure 1Literature screening process.
The basic characteristics of inclusion in the literature.
| Study | Year | Sample time (year.month) | Cases (treatment/control) | Age (years) | Gender (male/female) | Study design | Outcome measures | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment group | Control group | Treatment group | Control group | ||||||
| Qiu Changan | 2018 | 2017.02-2018.02 | 57/57 | 35.08 ± 7.25 | 34.85 ± 7.34 | 28/29 | 24/33 | RCT | ①+②+③+④ |
| Tang Changren | 2015 | 2011.01-2013.12 | 42/42 | 42.3 ± 8.7 | 43.9 ± 9.5 | 26/18 | 24/19 | RCT | ①+②+③+④ |
| Peng Leilei | 2016 | 2012.04-2014.04 | 90/90 | 20-70 | 18-66 | 47/43 | 50/40 | RCT | ①+②+③+④ |
| Wen Yunbo | 2016 | 2013.07-2014.07 | 40/40 | 40.3 ± 3.5 | 43.5 ± 4.7 | 21/19 | 24/16 | RCT | ①+②+③+④ |
| Huang Xiang | 2019 | 2016.05-2018.05 | 62/62 | 44.73 ± 3.85 | 46.28 ± 3.75 | 32/30 | 34/28 | RCT | ①+②+③+④ |
| Ma Hui | 2016 | 2014.02-2015.02 | 45/45 | 38.00 ± 2.58 | 39.00 ± 3.87 | 22/23 | 22/23 | RCT | ① |
| Miu Shidong | 2014 | 2011.03-2013.03 | 218/147 | 27.96 ± 3.25 | 28.00 ± 3.19 | 133/85 | 87/60 | RCT | ①+②+③ |
| Cai Xinjie | 2014 | 2007.10-2013.10 | 80/40 | 18-65 | 18-65 | 54/26 | 24/16 | RCT | ①+②+③ |
| Li Ting | 2015 | 2011.03-2013.10 | 45/44 | 30.95 ± 10.19 | 28.34 ± 12.65 | 26/19 | 29/16 | RCT | ①+② |
| Tang Zhongfen | 2016 | 2014.10-2015.10 | 50/50 | 41.6 ± 13.4 | 40.9 ± 7.8 | 32/18 | 27/23 | RCT | ①+②+③+④ |
| Zhang Cunxue | 2015 | 2012.06-2014.06 | 91/82 | 1.13 ± 0.87 | 1.34 ± 0.69 | 51/40 | 45/37 | RCT | ①+②+③+④ |
| Kong Danyang | 2019 | 2017.08-2018.06 | 40/40 | 63.8 ± 7.2 | 60.7 ± 5.4 | 23/17 | 22/18 | RCT | ①+②+③+④ |
| Yang Hui | 2018 | 2016.01-2017.01 | 29/29 | 36.7 ± 4.8 | 36.8 ± 4.6 | 17/12 | 16/13 | RCT | ①+②+④ |
| Ye Zhaowei | 2017 | 2015.09-2016.09 | 35/34 | 20 ± 1.87 | 19 ± 1.69 | 19/16 | 20/14 | RCT | ①+②+③ |
| Luo Lina | 2018 | 2015.02-2017.02 | 60/60 | 40.12 ± 4.03 | 40.26 ± 4.06 | 36/24 | 38/22 | RCT | ①+② |
| Gong Chaochao | 2019 | 2017.09-2018.12 | 50/50 | 23-65 | 23-65 | 27/23 | 21/29 | RCT | ①+② |
Note: RCT: randomized controlled trial; NR: not reported; ①: total effective rate; ②: cure rate; ③: lesion area after treatment; ④: degrees of pruritus after treatment.
Figure 2Forest plots of the effective rate (a), cure rate (b), lesion area (c), and degree of pruritus (d).
Figure 3Funnel plots of the lesion area (a), degree of pruritus (b), effective rate (c) and cure rate (d).
Figure 4Sensitivity analysis of the effective rate (a), cure rate (b), lesion area (c), and degree of pruritus degree (d).