Cochrane systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicines: an overview.

<h4>Objectives</h4>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.<h4>Methodology/principal findings</h4>W...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Jing Hu, Junhua Zhang, Wei Zhao, Yongling Zhang, Li Zhang, Hongcai Shang
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2011
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/33c1de02a5814bac8cd9bda9b010e2b4
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:33c1de02a5814bac8cd9bda9b010e2b4
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:33c1de02a5814bac8cd9bda9b010e2b42021-11-18T07:32:36ZCochrane systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicines: an overview.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0028696https://doaj.org/article/33c1de02a5814bac8cd9bda9b010e2b42011-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/22174870/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Objectives</h4>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.<h4>Methodology/principal findings</h4>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.<h4>Conclusions</h4>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.Jing HuJunhua ZhangWei ZhaoYongling ZhangLi ZhangHongcai ShangPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 6, Iss 12, p e28696 (2011)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Jing Hu Junhua Zhang Wei Zhao Yongling Zhang Li Zhang Hongcai Shang Cochrane systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicines: an overview.
description	<h4>Objectives</h4>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.<h4>Methodology/principal findings</h4>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.<h4>Conclusions</h4>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.
format	article
author	Jing Hu Junhua Zhang Wei Zhao Yongling Zhang Li Zhang Hongcai Shang
author_facet	Jing Hu Junhua Zhang Wei Zhao Yongling Zhang Li Zhang Hongcai Shang
author_sort	Jing Hu
title	Cochrane systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicines: an overview.
title_short	Cochrane systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicines: an overview.
title_full	Cochrane systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicines: an overview.
title_fullStr	Cochrane systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicines: an overview.
title_full_unstemmed	Cochrane systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicines: an overview.
title_sort	cochrane systematic reviews of chinese herbal medicines: an overview.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2011
url	https://doaj.org/article/33c1de02a5814bac8cd9bda9b010e2b4
work_keys_str_mv	AT jinghu cochranesystematicreviewsofchineseherbalmedicinesanoverview AT junhuazhang cochranesystematicreviewsofchineseherbalmedicinesanoverview AT weizhao cochranesystematicreviewsofchineseherbalmedicinesanoverview AT yonglingzhang cochranesystematicreviewsofchineseherbalmedicinesanoverview AT lizhang cochranesystematicreviewsofchineseherbalmedicinesanoverview AT hongcaishang cochranesystematicreviewsofchineseherbalmedicinesanoverview
_version_	1718423276881969152

Cochrane systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicines: an overview.

Ejemplares similares