中医药治疗儿童反复呼吸道感染:系统综述和 Meta 分析概述。

Deng Yasheng, Han Siyin, X I Lanhua, Huang Hui, Liang Tianwei, Zheng Yiqing, Fan Yanping, Lin Jiang
{"title":"中医药治疗儿童反复呼吸道感染:系统综述和 Meta 分析概述。","authors":"Deng Yasheng, Han Siyin, X I Lanhua, Huang Hui, Liang Tianwei, Zheng Yiqing, Fan Yanping, Lin Jiang","doi":"10.19852/j.cnki.jtcm.20240806.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate and summarise the evidence from published Meta-analyses/systematic reviews (MAs/SRs) of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) in the treatment of recurrent respiratory tract infections (RRTIs) and to provide a scientific basis for the clinical treatment of RRTIs with TCM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Studies were retrieved from Chinese and English databases including the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang database, China Science and Technology Journal Database, SinoMed, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and EMbase from their establishment date to March 2023. Involved studies were screened, extracted, and evaluated for quality by two researchers independently. The a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR) 2 scale was used for methodological quality evaluation, as well as the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement for report quality evaluation, the risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool for risk of bias, and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) quality assessment tool for evidence quality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty MAs/SRs studies were included, including analyses of 274 original studies involving 38 335 patients with RRTIs. The AMSTAR 2 scale evaluation results showed that 19 studies were of very low quality and one of moderate quality. The ROBIS evaluation results showed that 11 MAs/SRs were at high risk and nine at low risk of bias. The PRISMA 2020 report quality showed the included studies had scores between 23.5 and 35.5, among them one with high quality, 17 with moderate quality and two with low quality. The GRADE system results showed that among 126 outcome indicators, only 17 had moderate quality of evidence, 27 had low quality, 82 had very low quality, and none had high quality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The MAs/SRs methodological quality of using TCM for treatment RRTIs is generally poor, the quality of reports as well as of evidence is generally low, and the risk of bias is high; therefore we should treat these results with caution.</p>","PeriodicalId":94119,"journal":{"name":"Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11462541/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Traditional Chinese Medicine in the treatment of recurrent respiratory tract infections in children: an overview of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses.\",\"authors\":\"Deng Yasheng, Han Siyin, X I Lanhua, Huang Hui, Liang Tianwei, Zheng Yiqing, Fan Yanping, Lin Jiang\",\"doi\":\"10.19852/j.cnki.jtcm.20240806.007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate and summarise the evidence from published Meta-analyses/systematic reviews (MAs/SRs) of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) in the treatment of recurrent respiratory tract infections (RRTIs) and to provide a scientific basis for the clinical treatment of RRTIs with TCM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Studies were retrieved from Chinese and English databases including the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang database, China Science and Technology Journal Database, SinoMed, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and EMbase from their establishment date to March 2023. Involved studies were screened, extracted, and evaluated for quality by two researchers independently. The a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR) 2 scale was used for methodological quality evaluation, as well as the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement for report quality evaluation, the risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool for risk of bias, and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) quality assessment tool for evidence quality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty MAs/SRs studies were included, including analyses of 274 original studies involving 38 335 patients with RRTIs. The AMSTAR 2 scale evaluation results showed that 19 studies were of very low quality and one of moderate quality. The ROBIS evaluation results showed that 11 MAs/SRs were at high risk and nine at low risk of bias. The PRISMA 2020 report quality showed the included studies had scores between 23.5 and 35.5, among them one with high quality, 17 with moderate quality and two with low quality. The GRADE system results showed that among 126 outcome indicators, only 17 had moderate quality of evidence, 27 had low quality, 82 had very low quality, and none had high quality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The MAs/SRs methodological quality of using TCM for treatment RRTIs is generally poor, the quality of reports as well as of evidence is generally low, and the risk of bias is high; therefore we should treat these results with caution.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94119,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11462541/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.19852/j.cnki.jtcm.20240806.007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19852/j.cnki.jtcm.20240806.007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评估和总结已发表的中医药治疗反复呼吸道感染(RRTIs)的Meta分析/系统综述(MAs/SRs)证据,为中医药临床治疗RRTIs提供科学依据:方法:从中国知网、万方数据库、中国科技期刊数据库、SinoMed、PubMed、Web of Science、Cochrane Library和EMbase等中英文数据库中检索自建立之日起至2023年3月的相关研究。所涉及的研究由两名研究人员独立进行筛选、提取和质量评估。方法学质量评估采用系统综述评估工具(AMSTAR)2量表,报告质量评估采用系统综述和元分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)2020声明,偏倚风险采用系统综述偏倚风险工具(ROBIS),证据质量采用建议、评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)质量评估工具:共纳入 20 项 MAs/SRs 研究,包括对 274 项原始研究的分析,涉及 38 335 名 RRTI 患者。AMSTAR 2量表评估结果显示,19项研究的质量很低,1项为中等质量。ROBIS 评估结果显示,11 项 MAs/SR 存在高偏倚风险,9 项存在低偏倚风险。PRISMA 2020 报告质量显示,纳入研究的得分介于 23.5 和 35.5 之间,其中 1 项为高质量,17 项为中等质量,2 项为低质量。GRADE 系统结果显示,在 126 项结果指标中,只有 17 项具有中等证据质量,27 项质量较低,82 项质量很低,没有一项具有高质量:结论:使用中医药治疗 RRTIs 的 MAs/SRs 方法学质量普遍较差,报告和证据的质量普遍较低,偏倚风险较高;因此,我们应谨慎对待这些结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Traditional Chinese Medicine in the treatment of recurrent respiratory tract infections in children: an overview of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses.

Objective: To evaluate and summarise the evidence from published Meta-analyses/systematic reviews (MAs/SRs) of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) in the treatment of recurrent respiratory tract infections (RRTIs) and to provide a scientific basis for the clinical treatment of RRTIs with TCM.

Methods: Studies were retrieved from Chinese and English databases including the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang database, China Science and Technology Journal Database, SinoMed, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and EMbase from their establishment date to March 2023. Involved studies were screened, extracted, and evaluated for quality by two researchers independently. The a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR) 2 scale was used for methodological quality evaluation, as well as the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement for report quality evaluation, the risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool for risk of bias, and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) quality assessment tool for evidence quality.

Results: Twenty MAs/SRs studies were included, including analyses of 274 original studies involving 38 335 patients with RRTIs. The AMSTAR 2 scale evaluation results showed that 19 studies were of very low quality and one of moderate quality. The ROBIS evaluation results showed that 11 MAs/SRs were at high risk and nine at low risk of bias. The PRISMA 2020 report quality showed the included studies had scores between 23.5 and 35.5, among them one with high quality, 17 with moderate quality and two with low quality. The GRADE system results showed that among 126 outcome indicators, only 17 had moderate quality of evidence, 27 had low quality, 82 had very low quality, and none had high quality.

Conclusions: The MAs/SRs methodological quality of using TCM for treatment RRTIs is generally poor, the quality of reports as well as of evidence is generally low, and the risk of bias is high; therefore we should treat these results with caution.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信