Haiqi Song , Nian Li , Wenjie Yang , Miaomiao Wu , Xiaoyang Liao , Yonggang Zhang
{"title":"中医观察性研究可能提供与随机对照试验几乎一致的证据:一项荟萃流行病学研究","authors":"Haiqi Song , Nian Li , Wenjie Yang , Miaomiao Wu , Xiaoyang Liao , Yonggang Zhang","doi":"10.1016/j.imr.2022.100889","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>In traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) field, the benefits of observational studies was more significant. Whether the evidence from observational studies agreed with RCTs in the field of TCM was still unclear.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A meta-epidemiological study was conducted. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews including cohort studies and case-control studies of TCM were included. Ratio of odds ratio (ROR) of randomized controlled trials and observational studies were calculated individually and intercomparisons were conducted by pool analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 11 studies and 30 outcome pairs were included in the pool analysis. Using results from the observational studies as the reference group, the polled ROR comparing randomized controlled trials with observational studies was 1.23 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.44, and 95% prediction interval 0.90 to 1.68). The ROR by subgroup analysis were 1.15 (95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.38; 95% prediction interval 0.95 to 1.39) and 1.12 (95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.46; 95% prediction interval 0.51 to 2.47) for cohort studies and case-control studies, respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>There is difference in pooled results between randomized controlled studies and observational studies on TCM. However, the prediction interval shows the difference is small, which suggests observational studies of TCM can be included in data analysis to provide evidence for TCM. Future studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":13644,"journal":{"name":"Integrative Medicine Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3a/48/main.PMC9636547.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Observational studies of traditional Chinese medicine may provide evidence nearly consistent with the randomized controlled trials: A meta-epidemiological study\",\"authors\":\"Haiqi Song , Nian Li , Wenjie Yang , Miaomiao Wu , Xiaoyang Liao , Yonggang Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.imr.2022.100889\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>In traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) field, the benefits of observational studies was more significant. Whether the evidence from observational studies agreed with RCTs in the field of TCM was still unclear.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A meta-epidemiological study was conducted. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews including cohort studies and case-control studies of TCM were included. Ratio of odds ratio (ROR) of randomized controlled trials and observational studies were calculated individually and intercomparisons were conducted by pool analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 11 studies and 30 outcome pairs were included in the pool analysis. Using results from the observational studies as the reference group, the polled ROR comparing randomized controlled trials with observational studies was 1.23 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.44, and 95% prediction interval 0.90 to 1.68). The ROR by subgroup analysis were 1.15 (95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.38; 95% prediction interval 0.95 to 1.39) and 1.12 (95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.46; 95% prediction interval 0.51 to 2.47) for cohort studies and case-control studies, respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>There is difference in pooled results between randomized controlled studies and observational studies on TCM. However, the prediction interval shows the difference is small, which suggests observational studies of TCM can be included in data analysis to provide evidence for TCM. Future studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13644,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Integrative Medicine Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3a/48/main.PMC9636547.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Integrative Medicine Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213422022000567\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Integrative Medicine Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213422022000567","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Observational studies of traditional Chinese medicine may provide evidence nearly consistent with the randomized controlled trials: A meta-epidemiological study
Background
In traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) field, the benefits of observational studies was more significant. Whether the evidence from observational studies agreed with RCTs in the field of TCM was still unclear.
Methods
A meta-epidemiological study was conducted. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews including cohort studies and case-control studies of TCM were included. Ratio of odds ratio (ROR) of randomized controlled trials and observational studies were calculated individually and intercomparisons were conducted by pool analysis.
Results
A total of 11 studies and 30 outcome pairs were included in the pool analysis. Using results from the observational studies as the reference group, the polled ROR comparing randomized controlled trials with observational studies was 1.23 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.44, and 95% prediction interval 0.90 to 1.68). The ROR by subgroup analysis were 1.15 (95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.38; 95% prediction interval 0.95 to 1.39) and 1.12 (95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.46; 95% prediction interval 0.51 to 2.47) for cohort studies and case-control studies, respectively.
Conclusions
There is difference in pooled results between randomized controlled studies and observational studies on TCM. However, the prediction interval shows the difference is small, which suggests observational studies of TCM can be included in data analysis to provide evidence for TCM. Future studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.
期刊介绍：
Integrative Medicine Research (IMR) is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal focused on scientific research for integrative medicine including traditional medicine (emphasis on acupuncture and herbal medicine), complementary and alternative medicine, and systems medicine. The journal includes papers on basic research, clinical research, methodology, theory, computational analysis and modelling, topical reviews, medical history, education and policy based on physiology, pathology, diagnosis and the systems approach in the field of integrative medicine.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
