Cochrane systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicines: an overview.
Cochrane systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicines: an overview.
复制标题
Cochrane系统评价中国草药：概述。
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0028696
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Shang H
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hu J;Zhang J;Zhao W;Zhang Y;Zhang L;Shang H
我们的研究有两个目的：（1）系统识别科克伦图书馆中发表的所有中草药系统评价;（B）评价纳入评价的方法学质量。我们对科克伦系统评价数据库（CDSR，第5期，2010）进行了系统检索，以识别所有关于CHM的综述。共有58篇评论符合我们的研究条件。21篇纳入的综述中至少有一位中医（TCM）医生作为其共同作者。7篇综述不包括任何主要研究，其余综述（n = 51）包括中位数为9项研究和936例受试者。 50%的评论最后一次被评估为2008年之前的最新评论。39篇综述涉及的问题范围广泛，其中9篇综述将研究与不同的草药结合起来。对于OQAQ，总体质量评分（第10项）的平均值为5.05（95% CI; 4.58-5.52）。所有综述均评估了主要研究的方法学质量，16%纳入的主要研究使用了充分的序列生成，7%使用了充分的分配隐藏。在51篇非空综述中，23篇综述报告为不确定性，而27篇得出结论认为CHM可能有益，但由于纳入研究质量差或数量不足而受到限制。58篇综述报告检索了7个电子数据库，10篇综述未检索任何中文数据库。目前CDSR已收录了大量中医药文献，但仍有不足之处，如近半数文献没有中医药从业者的参与，且根据科克伦（Cochrane）标准，文献内容不及时，部分文献将不同中药的研究结果合并，忽略了中文数据库的检索。
Our study had two objectives: a) to systematically identify all existing systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) published in Cochrane Library; b) to assess the methodological quality of included reviews. We performed a systematic search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR, Issue 5, 2010) to identify all reviews of CHM. A total of fifty-eight reviews were eligible for our study. Twenty-one of the included reviews had at least one Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) practitioner as its co-author. 7 reviews didn't include any primary study, the remaining reviews (n = 51) included a median of 9 studies and 936 participants. 50% of reviews were last assessed as up-to-date prior to 2008. The questions addressed by 39 reviews were broad in scope, in which 9 reviews combined studies with different herbal medicines. For OQAQ, the mean of overall quality score (item 10) was 5.05 (95% CI; 4.58-5.52). All reviews assessed the methodological quality of primary studies, 16% of included primary studies used adequate sequence generation and 7% used adequate allocation concealment. Of the 51 nonempty reviews, 23 reviews were reported as being inconclusive, while 27 concluded that there might be benefit of CHM, which was limited by the poor quality or inadequate quantity of included studies. 58 reviews reported searching a median of seven electronic databases, while 10 reviews did not search any Chinese database. Now CDSR has included large numbers of CHM reviews, our study identified some areas which could be improved, such as almost half of included reviews did not have the participation of TCM practitioners and were not up-to-date according to Cochrane criteria, some reviews pooled the results of different herbal medicines and ignored the searching of Chinese databases.
影响因子：
120.7
作者：
Jadad, AR;Cook, DJ;Moher, D
通讯作者：
Moher, D
今天的草药：临床和研究问题。
影响因子：
--
作者：
Firenzuoli, Fabio;Gori, Luigi
通讯作者：
Gori, Luigi
影响因子：
8.4
作者：
Grant, Suzanne J.;Bensoussan, Alan;Chang, Dennis;Kiat, Hosen;Klupp, Nerida L.;Liu, Jian Ping;Li, Xun
通讯作者：
Li, Xun