Cargando…

Huangqi Guizhi Wuwu Decoction for treating cervical radiculopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Huangqi Guizhi Wuwu Decoction (HGWD) is a common prescription for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy (CR). And the effectiveness and safety of HGWD for CR were assessed in this study. METHODS: Seven databases were searched. Randomized controlled trials involving HGWD alone or HGWD c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liang, Long, Wei, Xu, Feng, Minshan, Zhu, Liguo, Yu, Jie, Yang, Gongbo, Yin, Xunlu, Zhou, Shuaiqi, Li, Kaiming, Yang, Mao, Wang, Xingyu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7035008/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32049834
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000019137
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Huangqi Guizhi Wuwu Decoction (HGWD) is a common prescription for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy (CR). And the effectiveness and safety of HGWD for CR were assessed in this study. METHODS: Seven databases were searched. Randomized controlled trials involving HGWD alone or HGWD combined with conventional treatment were enrolled. The authors in pairs independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted the data. RESULTS: Eight studies involving 783 participants with CR were included. Meta-analysis revealed that the efficacy of HGWD for CR was significantly superior compared with control treatment (risk ratio = 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.06–1.19, Z = 3.71; P = .0002). Compare with control group, there is an increase in visual analog scale (mean difference [MD] = 0.99; 95% CI: 0.83–1.14; Z = 12.57; P < .00001). There was also an improvement of neck disability index (MD = 9.2; 95% CI: 8.28–10.11; Z = 19.75; P < .00001). Adverse events were not mentioned in the 8 trials. CONCLUSION: HGWD alone or HGWD plus other treatment may be helpful to patients with CR. However, the methodological quality of the randomized controlled trials was generally low. Larger and better-designed randomized controlled trials are recommended.