Cargando…
Chinese Herbal Medicine Versus Placebo for the Treatment Of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Protocol of Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
BACKGROUND: Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has been shown to be effective in the treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) by published meta-analyses. However, disease outcomes were inconsistent and heterogeneity was observed attributed to placebo-controlled studies. We present...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer Health
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6736470/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31464955 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000017002 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has been shown to be effective in the treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) by published meta-analyses. However, disease outcomes were inconsistent and heterogeneity was observed attributed to placebo-controlled studies. We present a protocol for a systematic review aiming to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of CHM comparing to placebo in the treatment of stable COPD, to provide robust evidence for the use of CHM in COPD. METHODS: We will comprehensively search the following 9 databases from inception to March 2019: Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WANFANG Database, Chinese Scientific and Technological Periodical Database (VIP) and Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM), and the Cochrane Library database. All clinical randomized controlled trials comparing CHM to placebo for the treatment of stable COPD in English or Chinese will be included. The primary outcome will be quality of life, symptom score and exacerbation frequency, and the secondary outcomes include traditional Chinese medicine syndrome score and effective rate, lung function, 6-minute walk distance, and adverse events. Data extraction and quality assessment will be performed independently by 2 reviewers. Data synthesis and risk of bias will be assessed using the Review Manager software. This protocol will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidance. RESULTS: This systematic review and meta-analysis will provide a high-quality comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and safety based on current literature evidence of CHM intervention for stable COPD. CONCLUSION: The conclusion of this study will present the evidence of whether CHM is an effective and safe intervention for stable COPD patients. |
---|