Objective. To access the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) about Chinese medical treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Methods. The PubMed, Wanfang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP), Chinese Biomedical (CBM), Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to June 2020. Two researchers independently screened the literature considering the eligibility criteria. Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ), Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2), and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the included reports. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to evaluate the level of evidence in each report. Results. Thirty-three SRs/MAs met the inclusion criteria. The OQAQ results showed that defects in the methodological quality of 17/32 reports were major, with scores of 3 points. Analyzing a single item as the object, search strategies (item 2), and risk of bias in individual studies (item 4) was considered poor. The AMSTAR 2 results showed that 25.4% of the items were not reported, and 7.8% of the items were only partially reported. The overall assessment of AMSTAR 2 showed the majority of systematic reviews and meta-analyses were of low/very low (31/33, 93.9%) methodological quality, with a lack of protocol registration and excluded study list. The PRISMA results showed that 19.9% of items were not reported, and 15.2% of items were only partially reported, due to a lack of protocol registration and study selection methods. The methodological and reporting quality of the included studies was generally poor. Evidence evaluation with GRADE showed that most (31/33) of the included studies had low or very low levels of evidence. Conclusion. The methodological and reporting quality of SRs/MAs about Chinese medical treatment for GERD is generally poor. The main problems included incomplete search strategies, risk of bias in individual studies, the lack of protocol registration and excluded study list, and incorrect study selection methods.
Purpose. This study aims to develop and validate a quantitative model for measuring severity of a typical traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) pattern for functional dyspepsia (FD) using multidimensional analysis methods including confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and multidimensional item response theory (MIRT). Methods. A scale and theoretical models were constructed according to the definition of pathogenesis about “liver-stomach disharmony” patterns of FD. With data collected from 502 patients in a cross-section study, the theoretical model was validated with CFA, and the related validity and reliability were evaluated in Amos 21.0. By the use of the MIRT paradigm, psychometric properties of the scale were estimated and evaluated for pattern quantification. Results. A scale consisting of 12 items was constructed detecting three latent traits of the pattern. The theoretical model was evaluated to be with adequate consistency with clinical data as RMSEA < 0.05, CFI = 0.94, and χ2/Df = 2.29. As the correlation between symptoms and related pattern factors evaluated to be with adequate factor loading, the instrument is of preliminary interpretation. Most precision of assessment could be achieved for patients with moderate severity of the pattern as shown in test information and standard error functions. Conclusions. An instrument with an interpretable conceptual framework was developed for pattern quantification in TCM clinical practice. By constructing and evaluating both psychological and physical effects in a multidimensional model of the TCM pattern of FD, the paradigm raised in this article provided a valuable reference for interpreting complex diseases and theories such as FD and TCM patterns.
BACKGROUND Functional constipation (FC) is a common and chronic gastrointestinal disease and its treatment remains challenging. AIM To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) on efficacy rate, global symptoms, bowel movements and the Bristol Stool Scale score in patients with FC by summarizing current available randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS RCTs with CHM to treat FC were identified by a systematic search of six databases from inception to October 20, 2020. Two independent reviewers assessed the quality of the included articles and extracted data. Meta-analyses were performed to odds ratio (OR), mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were used to explore and interpret the sources of heterogeneity. The funnel plot, Begg’s test and Egger’s test were used to detect publication bias. RESULTS Ninety-seven studies involving 8693 patients were included in this work. CHM was significantly associated with a higher efficacy rate (OR: 3.62, 95%CI: 3.19-4.11, P < 0.00001) less severe global symptoms (OR: 4.03, 95%CI: 3.49-4.65, P < 0.00001) compared with control treatment, with the low heterogeneity between studies ( I 2 = 0%, P = 0.76). CHM was also associated with more frequent bowel movements (MD 0.83, 95%CI: 0.67-0.98, P < 0.00001), a lower score on the Bristol Stool Scale (OR: 1.63, 95%CI: 1.15-2.32, P < 0.006), and a not significant recurrence rate (OR: 0.47, 95%CI: 0.22-0.99, P = 0.05). No serious adverse effects of CHM were reported. CONCLUSION In this meta-analysis, we found that CHM may have potential benefits in increasing the number of bowel movements, improving stool characteristics and alleviating global symptoms in FC patients. However, a firm conclusion could not be reached because of the poor quality of the included trials. Further trials with higher quality are required.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.