Chinese medicine for idiopathic Parkinson’s disease: A meta analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

CM adjunct therapy has potential therapeutic benefits by decreasing UPDRS scores and reducing adverse effect.

An Overview of Systematic Reviews of Chinese Herbal Medicine for Parkinson's Disease

“…Four studies (Chung et al, 2006; Kim et al, 2012; Huo and Yu, 2014; Wen et al, 2014) compared CHM therapy with WCM. Comparing CHM paratherapy with WCM were conducted in 10 studies (Chung et al, 2006; Kim et al, 2012; Wang et al, 2012; Wen et al, 2014; Zhang et al, 2014, 2015; Cui and Liu, 2015; Zhang, 2015; Wei et al, 2017; Shan et al, 2018). The number of RCTs included in SRs ranged from 9 to 64.…”

“…The number of RCTs included in SRs ranged from 9 to 64. The overall quality of primary studies was poor according to the Jadad score (Huo and Yu, 2014; Wen et al, 2014; Cui and Liu, 2015; Zhang, 2015) or Cochrane risk of bias tool (Chung et al, 2006; Kim et al, 2012; Wang et al, 2012; Zhang et al, 2014, 2015; Wei et al, 2017; Shan et al, 2018). Nine SRs conducted meta-analysis, while the other 2 (Chung et al, 2006; Kim et al, 2012) did not.…”

“…Two SRs (Chung et al, 2006; Wen et al, 2014) did not appropriately explain the findings of studies, 3 SRs (Chung et al, 2006; Wen et al, 2014; Cui and Liu, 2015) did not assess the likelihood of publication bias, and 6 SRs (Chung et al, 2006; Huo and Yu, 2014; Wen et al, 2014; Zhang et al, 2014; Cui and Liu, 2015; Zhang, 2015) did not state the conflicts of interest. For overall scores, 3 SRs achieved high quality with scoring 9 points of AMSTAR (Zhang et al, 2015; Wei et al, 2017; Shan et al, 2018); one was low quality with scoring 4 points (Chung et al, 2006); the quality of the remaining 7 studies were moderate. Among them, 3 SRs scored 7 points (Kim et al, 2012; Wang et al, 2012; Cui and Liu, 2015), 2 scored 8 points (Zhang et al, 2014; Zhang, 2015), 1 scored 5 points (Wen et al, 2014), and 1 scored 6 points (Huo and Yu, 2014).…”

“…Five SRs (Wang et al, 2012; Cui and Liu, 2015; Zhang et al, 2015; Wei et al, 2017; Shan et al, 2018) assessed the UPDRS I score and all of them indicated that CHM combined with WCM is better than that of WCM ( P < 0.05). Meta-analysis was conducted in all of 5 SRs.…”

“…The herbal extracts and their biocompounds exert antioxidant, anti-apoptotic, and anti-inflammatory effects, which contribute to avoiding neuronal loss, acting on the biosynthesis of dopamine and its metabolites, and preventing D2 receptors' hypersensitivity (da Costa et al, 2017). In the past years, a number of systematic reviews have been conducted to evaluate the potential therapeutic benefits of CHM for PD (Chung et al, 2006; Kim et al, 2012; Wang et al, 2012; Huo and Yu, 2014; Wen et al, 2014; Zhang et al, 2014, 2015; Cui and Liu, 2015; Zhang, 2015; Wei et al, 2017; Shan et al, 2018), but their conclusions are inconsistent because of the quality of primary studies or methodological flaws. In addition, an overview of systematic reviews (SRs) is a novel tool to address a specific, focused question, relevant to policy or practice, and synthesize evidence from multiple SRs into a single, useful file that can be used to guide health care professionals and policy makers (Thomson et al, 2010; Baker et al, 2014).…”