中药治疗稳定型心绞痛临床试验的疗效评价

D. Xing, Mingjun Zhu, Chunxiang Liu, Hui Wang
{"title":"中药治疗稳定型心绞痛临床试验的疗效评价","authors":"D. Xing, Mingjun Zhu, Chunxiang Liu, Hui Wang","doi":"10.1097/HM9.0000000000000014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objective: This work aimed to present a descriptive analysis of the outcome measures used in clinical trials of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for patients with stable angina pectoris, and to provide baseline data for the development of core outcome sets (COSs) for relevant clinical trials. Methods: Medical databases were searched to identify randomized trials of the effects of TCM for the treatment of stable angina pectoris. Outcome measures of each trial were extracted. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the baseline characteristics of outcomes in clinical trials of TCM. Results: 94 randomized trials (with 9,111 participants) involving 79 different outcomes were identified. The mean number of outcomes was 5 (1–21 per trial). The 5 most commonly reported outcomes were efficacy rate of electrocardiogram, efficacy rate of angina pectoris, efficacy rate of TCM syndrome, fasting lipid indices, and withdrawal rate of nitroglycerin. Several challenges were identified: (1) significant heterogeneity of outcomes and differences in the technique and timing of the measurement of the same outcome; (2) transformation of continuous data into categorical data and presented as such in >90% of trials; (3) few trials on the outcomes associated with the advantages and characteristics of TCM; and (4) selective reporting of outcomes. Conclusions: The outcomes used are excessively heterogenous, and the choice of some outcomes (timing and techniques) for measurement is confusing or inappropriate. Hence, developing and implementing a COS is necessary for greater consistency.","PeriodicalId":93856,"journal":{"name":"Acupuncture and herbal medicine","volume":"13 1","pages":"99 - 106"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcome measures in clinical trials of traditional Chinese medicine for stable angina pectoris\",\"authors\":\"D. Xing, Mingjun Zhu, Chunxiang Liu, Hui Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/HM9.0000000000000014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Objective: This work aimed to present a descriptive analysis of the outcome measures used in clinical trials of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for patients with stable angina pectoris, and to provide baseline data for the development of core outcome sets (COSs) for relevant clinical trials. Methods: Medical databases were searched to identify randomized trials of the effects of TCM for the treatment of stable angina pectoris. Outcome measures of each trial were extracted. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the baseline characteristics of outcomes in clinical trials of TCM. Results: 94 randomized trials (with 9,111 participants) involving 79 different outcomes were identified. The mean number of outcomes was 5 (1–21 per trial). The 5 most commonly reported outcomes were efficacy rate of electrocardiogram, efficacy rate of angina pectoris, efficacy rate of TCM syndrome, fasting lipid indices, and withdrawal rate of nitroglycerin. Several challenges were identified: (1) significant heterogeneity of outcomes and differences in the technique and timing of the measurement of the same outcome; (2) transformation of continuous data into categorical data and presented as such in >90% of trials; (3) few trials on the outcomes associated with the advantages and characteristics of TCM; and (4) selective reporting of outcomes. Conclusions: The outcomes used are excessively heterogenous, and the choice of some outcomes (timing and techniques) for measurement is confusing or inappropriate. Hence, developing and implementing a COS is necessary for greater consistency.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93856,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acupuncture and herbal medicine\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"99 - 106\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acupuncture and herbal medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/HM9.0000000000000014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acupuncture and herbal medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/HM9.0000000000000014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

摘要目的:对稳定型心绞痛患者中医临床试验的结局指标进行描述性分析,为制定相关临床试验的核心结局集(COSs)提供基线数据。方法:检索医学数据库,确定中药治疗稳定型心绞痛的随机试验。提取每个试验的结局指标。采用描述性统计分析中医临床试验结果的基线特征。结果:94项随机试验(9111名参与者)涉及79种不同的结果。平均结局数为5个(每个试验1-21个)。最常报道的5项指标为心电图有效率、心绞痛有效率、中医证候有效率、空腹血脂指标、硝酸甘油停药率。我们发现了几个挑战:(1)结果的显著异质性以及测量相同结果的技术和时间的差异;(2)将连续数据转换为分类数据,并在>90%的试验中以分类数据的形式呈现;(3)与中医优势和特点相关的结局试验较少;(4)选择性报告结果。结论:使用的结果过于异质性,一些测量结果(时间和技术)的选择令人困惑或不适当。因此,开发和实现COS对于提高一致性是必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Outcome measures in clinical trials of traditional Chinese medicine for stable angina pectoris
Abstract Objective: This work aimed to present a descriptive analysis of the outcome measures used in clinical trials of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for patients with stable angina pectoris, and to provide baseline data for the development of core outcome sets (COSs) for relevant clinical trials. Methods: Medical databases were searched to identify randomized trials of the effects of TCM for the treatment of stable angina pectoris. Outcome measures of each trial were extracted. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the baseline characteristics of outcomes in clinical trials of TCM. Results: 94 randomized trials (with 9,111 participants) involving 79 different outcomes were identified. The mean number of outcomes was 5 (1–21 per trial). The 5 most commonly reported outcomes were efficacy rate of electrocardiogram, efficacy rate of angina pectoris, efficacy rate of TCM syndrome, fasting lipid indices, and withdrawal rate of nitroglycerin. Several challenges were identified: (1) significant heterogeneity of outcomes and differences in the technique and timing of the measurement of the same outcome; (2) transformation of continuous data into categorical data and presented as such in >90% of trials; (3) few trials on the outcomes associated with the advantages and characteristics of TCM; and (4) selective reporting of outcomes. Conclusions: The outcomes used are excessively heterogenous, and the choice of some outcomes (timing and techniques) for measurement is confusing or inappropriate. Hence, developing and implementing a COS is necessary for greater consistency.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
New Perspective on the Treatment of Rheumatic Arthritis Based on “Strengthening Body Resistance (Fú Zhèng)” in the Theory of Co-inhibitory Receptor-regulated T-Cell Immunity Formulations of traditional Chinese medicine for the prevention and treatment of radiation-induced injury The Role of Ginseng as an Anti-Asthmatic Agent Research progress on the toxicity of Asari Radix et Rhizoma Dual effects of Psoraleae Fructus on the liver: hepatoprotection or hepatoxicity?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1