Chinese herbal medicine for diabetic peripheral neuropathy

Background Chinese herbal medicine is frequently used for treating diabetic peripheral neuropathy in China. Many controlled trials have been undertaken to investigate its efficacy. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in the year 2011. Objectives To assess the beneficial effects and harms of Chinese herbal medicine for people with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Search methods On 14 May 2012, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register CENTRAL (2012, Issue 4 in The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to May 2012), AMED (January 1985 to May 2012) and in October 2012, the Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) (1979 to October 2012), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI) (1979 to October 2012), and VIP Chinese Science and Technique Journals Database (1989 to October 2012). We searched for unpublished literature in the Chinese Conference Papers Database, and Chinese Dissertation Database (from inception to October 2012). There were no language or publication restrictions. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials of Chinese herbal medicine (with a minimum of four weeks treatment duration) for people with diabetic peripheral neuropathy compared with placebo, no intervention, or conventional interventions. Trials of herbal medicine plus a conventional drug versus the drug alone were also included. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently extracted data and evaluated trial quality. We contacted study authors for additional information. Main results Forty‐nine randomised trials involving 3639 participants were included. All trials were conducted and published in China. Thirty‐eight different herbal medicines were tested in these trials, including four single herbs (extracts from a single herb), eight traditional Chinese patent medicines, and 26 self concocted Chinese herbal compound prescriptions. The trials reported on global symptom improvement (including improvement in numbness or pain) and changes in nerve conduction velocity. The positive results described from the 49 studies of low quality are of questionable significance. There was inadequate reporting on adverse events in the included trials. Eighteen trials found no adverse events. Two trials reported adverse events: adverse events occurred in the control group in one trial, and in the other it was unclear in which group the adverse events occurred. 29 trials did