Efficacy of Chinese herbal medicine for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials
OBJECTIVE: This is a review of the effects of Chi- nese herbal medicine (CHM) used alone to treat lumbar disc herniation (LDH). METHORDS: A literature search of the following electronic databases from their inception to Febru- ary 2013 was conducted: Chinese Biomedical data- bases, Chinese National...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine 2013-12, Vol.33 (6), p.721-726 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | OBJECTIVE: This is a review of the effects of Chi- nese herbal medicine (CHM) used alone to treat lumbar disc herniation (LDH). METHORDS: A literature search of the following electronic databases from their inception to Febru- ary 2013 was conducted: Chinese Biomedical data- bases, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database, Cochrane Library, Web of Sci- ence, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Randomized con- trolled trials where CHM had been used to treat LDH were selected. Data extraction, quality assess- ment, and data analysis were carried out by two in- dependent reviewers. RESULTS: Of the 2415 studies identified, eight with complete data on 1146 patients were selected. The methodological quality was poor in all trials. Five studies reported that CHM was better than WesternMedicine [OR=2.81, 95% CI (1.27, 6.18); OR=3.34, 95% CI (1.92, 5.79); 0R=2.22, 95% CI (1.08, 4.57); OR= 6.67, 95% CI (1.34, 33.28); and OR=1.94, 95% CI (1.23, 3.06)]. Two studies reported that the clinical outcome was better in CHM groups than in physio- therapy and placebo groups, [OR=3.02, 9.5% CI (1.08, 8.46); and OR=2.67, 95% CI (1.26, 5.64), re- spectively], whereas one study reported no differ- ence between CHM and physiotherapy groups. One study reported that CHM resulted in higher Japanese Orthopedic Association scores [MD=7.78, 95% CI (6.67, 8.89)] than in a control group and an- other that participants treated with CHM had lower Visual Analogue Scale scores [MD=- 0.72, 95% CI ( - 0.86, 0.58)] than those in a control group. Three studies reported that the adverse effects of CHM and Western Medicine did not differ signifi- cantly [OR=0.10, 95% CI (0.01, 1.85); OR=0.19, 95% CI (0.01,4.07); and OR=O.07, 95% CI (0.00, 1.32)]. CONCLUSION: CHM may be more effective than other interventions for LDH; however, methodologi- cal weaknesses in the studies assessed in this re- view prevent a definitive conclusion. More high-quality large-scale studies are required to clar- ify this matter. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0255-2922 0254-6272 |
DOI: | 10.1016/S0254-6272(14)60003-0 |