论文部分内容阅读
目的:评估中西医结合治疗支气管哮喘的临床疗效。方法:检索PubMed(1988-2008)、CBMdisc(1978-2008)、CNKI(1980-2008)、VIP(1989-2008),纳入治疗组采用中西医结合疗法,对照组采用西药对照防治支气管哮喘的随机对照试验。纳入试验的方法学质量由两位评价员独立评价,采用RevMan4.2.10软件作meta分析。结果:共纳入26篇随机对照试验,全部研究方法学质量都被评为C级。Meta分析显示,总有效率合并效应值(OR=4.62,CI95%[3.40,6.29],P<0.00001),FEV1合并效应值(WMD=0.29,CI95%[0.22,0.35],P<0.00001),FEV1%合并效应值(WMD=3.57,CI95%[2.84,4.30],P<0.00001),FVC合并效应值(WMD=0.32,CI95%[0.21,0.43],P<0.00001),没有发现严重不良反应报道。结论:中西医结合治疗支气管哮喘较单纯西医治疗有更好的疗效,由于纳入研究均存在偏倚的高度可能性,尚需要更多高质量的随机对照试验来证明。
Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of integrated traditional Chinese and western medicine in the treatment of bronchial asthma. Methods: PubMed (1988-2008), CBMdisc (1978-2008), CNKI (1980-2008) and VIP (1989-2008) were enrolled in the treatment group. The control group was treated with western medicine and western medicine. The control group was randomized to control bronchial asthma Control test. The quality of the methodology included in the trial was independently evaluated by two reviewers, using the RevMan 4.2.10 software for meta-analysis. Results: A total of 26 randomized controlled trials were included and all research methodology was rated C level. Meta-analysis showed that the total effective combined effect (OR = 4.62, CI95% [3.40,6.29], P <0.00001), FEV1 combined effect (WMD = 0.29, CI95% [0.22,0.35], P <0.00001) The combined effects of FEV1 (WMD = 3.57, CI95% [2.84, 4.30], P <0.00001) and FVC (WMD = 0.32, CI95% [0.21,0.43], P <0.00001) did not reveal serious adverse reactions Reported. Conclusion: The combination of traditional Chinese and Western medicine for bronchial asthma is better than Western medicine alone. Because of the high possibility of bias in the study, more high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to prove.