Limits...
Effectiveness and Safety of Manufactured Chinese Herbal Formula for Knee Osteoarthritis: Insights from a Systematic Review.

Zhu L, Yang S, Wang S, Gong H, Li L, Wei X - Evid Based Complement Alternat Med (2015)

Bottom Line: Additionally, MCHF plus routine treatments significantly decreased the scores of WOMAC and Lequesne index.No significant differences were found in Lysholm scores.Our results indicated that MCHF showed some potential benefits for KOA.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Spine, Wangjing Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Huajiadi Street, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100102, China.

ABSTRACT
Objective. To assess the current clinical evidence of manufactured Chinese herbal formulae (MCHF) for knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Methods. Seven databases were searched from inception to May 2015. Eligible randomized controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of MCHF for KOA were included. Data extraction, methodological assessment, and meta-analyses were conducted according to the Cochrane standards. Results. A total of 17 kinds of MCHF were identified from the twenty-six included trials. Meta-analyses showed that MCHF significantly relieved the global pain of knee joints, either used alone or combined with routine treatments. Additionally, MCHF plus routine treatments significantly decreased the scores of WOMAC and Lequesne index. However, there were no statistical differences between MCHF group and routine treatment group in walk-related pain and WOMAC scores. No significant differences were found in Lysholm scores. There were twenty-one trials that mentioned adverse events. A pooled analysis showed that adverse events occurred more frequently in control group compared with MCHF group. Conclusions. Our results indicated that MCHF showed some potential benefits for KOA. However, we still cannot draw firm conclusions due to the poor methodological quality of included trials. More high-quality RCTs would help to confirm the evidence.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Forest plot of comparison: MCHF alone or MCHF plus routine treatments versus routine treatment for KOA, outcome: adverse events.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4644564&req=5

fig10: Forest plot of comparison: MCHF alone or MCHF plus routine treatments versus routine treatment for KOA, outcome: adverse events.

Mentions: Meta-analysis was conducted to compare the adverse events in experimental group and control group. Fixed-effects models were used for meta-analysis (MCHF versus routine treatments: χ2 = 18.29, P = 0.08; I2 = 40%; MCHF plus routine treatment versus routine treatment: χ2 = 2.02, P = 0.92; I2 = 0%). No significant differences were found in adverse events between MCHF plus routine treatments group and routine treatments group (RR = 0.98 [0.55, 1.75]; P = 0.94). However the result for the comparison of MCHF alone versus routine treatments revealed that adverse events occurred more frequently in control group (RR = 0.42 [0.28, 0.63]; P < 0.0001) (as shown in Figure 10).


Effectiveness and Safety of Manufactured Chinese Herbal Formula for Knee Osteoarthritis: Insights from a Systematic Review.

Zhu L, Yang S, Wang S, Gong H, Li L, Wei X - Evid Based Complement Alternat Med (2015)

Forest plot of comparison: MCHF alone or MCHF plus routine treatments versus routine treatment for KOA, outcome: adverse events.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4644564&req=5

fig10: Forest plot of comparison: MCHF alone or MCHF plus routine treatments versus routine treatment for KOA, outcome: adverse events.
Mentions: Meta-analysis was conducted to compare the adverse events in experimental group and control group. Fixed-effects models were used for meta-analysis (MCHF versus routine treatments: χ2 = 18.29, P = 0.08; I2 = 40%; MCHF plus routine treatment versus routine treatment: χ2 = 2.02, P = 0.92; I2 = 0%). No significant differences were found in adverse events between MCHF plus routine treatments group and routine treatments group (RR = 0.98 [0.55, 1.75]; P = 0.94). However the result for the comparison of MCHF alone versus routine treatments revealed that adverse events occurred more frequently in control group (RR = 0.42 [0.28, 0.63]; P < 0.0001) (as shown in Figure 10).

Bottom Line: Additionally, MCHF plus routine treatments significantly decreased the scores of WOMAC and Lequesne index.No significant differences were found in Lysholm scores.Our results indicated that MCHF showed some potential benefits for KOA.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Spine, Wangjing Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Huajiadi Street, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100102, China.

ABSTRACT
Objective. To assess the current clinical evidence of manufactured Chinese herbal formulae (MCHF) for knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Methods. Seven databases were searched from inception to May 2015. Eligible randomized controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of MCHF for KOA were included. Data extraction, methodological assessment, and meta-analyses were conducted according to the Cochrane standards. Results. A total of 17 kinds of MCHF were identified from the twenty-six included trials. Meta-analyses showed that MCHF significantly relieved the global pain of knee joints, either used alone or combined with routine treatments. Additionally, MCHF plus routine treatments significantly decreased the scores of WOMAC and Lequesne index. However, there were no statistical differences between MCHF group and routine treatment group in walk-related pain and WOMAC scores. No significant differences were found in Lysholm scores. There were twenty-one trials that mentioned adverse events. A pooled analysis showed that adverse events occurred more frequently in control group compared with MCHF group. Conclusions. Our results indicated that MCHF showed some potential benefits for KOA. However, we still cannot draw firm conclusions due to the poor methodological quality of included trials. More high-quality RCTs would help to confirm the evidence.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus