左旋咪唑或联合中药治疗复发性阿弗他口腔溃疡的系统评价与Meta分析

发布时间：2018-07-25 06:34

【摘要】：目的:系统评价左旋咪唑单独用药及联合中药治疗复发性阿弗他口腔溃疡的有效性和安全性。方法:计算机检索Cochrane图书馆、PubMed、CNKI、万方数据库在线知识服务平台,纳入有关左旋咪唑及联合中药治疗复发性阿弗他口腔溃疡的随机对照试验,根据Cochrane Reviewer’s Handbook 5.0.2评价标准和工具对纳入的研究进行质量评价,并使用RevMan5.2软件进行统计分析。结果:左旋咪唑单独用药共纳入9个随机对照试验,共331例患者,治疗组有效性高于安慰剂组,其差异具有统计学意义(OR=4.92,95%CI[2.14,11.32],P=0.0002),共有46例患者出现不良反应。左旋咪唑联合中药共纳入16个随机对照试验,共1854例患者,治疗组RAU的有效性明显高于对照组,其差异具有统计学意义(OR=5.97,95%CI[4.40,8.10],P0.00001),无不良反应报道。结论:左旋咪唑联合中药用于复发性阿弗他口腔溃疡较单独采用左旋咪唑效果更好,并且避免了左旋咪唑单独用药副作用大的缺点,具有较好的临床研究和运用前景。但本系统评价纳入研究文献质量较差,增加了本次系统评价结论产生偏倚的风险,期待有高质量的临床试验报道。
[Abstract]:Objective: to evaluate the efficacy and safety of levamisole alone and traditional Chinese medicine in the treatment of recurrent aphthous ulcer. Methods: the online knowledge service platform of Cochrane Library (Cochrane Library) was searched to study the efficacy of levamisole and traditional Chinese medicine in the treatment of recurrent aphthous ulcer. According to the Cochrane Reviewer's Handbook 5.0.2 evaluation criteria and tools, the quality of the included research was evaluated, and the statistical analysis was carried out with RevMan5.2 software. Results: levamisole alone was used in 9 randomized controlled trials (331 patients). The efficacy of the treatment group was higher than that of the placebo group, and the difference was statistically significant (ORV 4.92 卤95CI [2.14 卤11.32] P 0.0002), and 46 patients had adverse reactions. A total of 16 randomized controlled trials were conducted with levamisole combined with Chinese herbal medicine. The efficacy of RAU in the treatment group was significantly higher than that in the control group. The difference was statistically significant (OR5.97 ~ 95CI [4.408.10] P 0.00001), and no adverse reactions were reported. Conclusion: levamisole combined with traditional Chinese medicine is more effective than levamisole alone in the treatment of recurrent aphthous ulcer, and it can avoid the disadvantages of side effects of levamisole alone. It has good clinical research and application prospect. However, the quality of the systematic evaluation is poor, which increases the risk of bias in the conclusion of this systematic evaluation, and looks forward to a high quality clinical trial report.
【作者单位】：广东药学院中药学院;广州医科大学口腔学院;广州白云山和记黄埔中药有限公司;广州医药研究总院;
【基金】：广州市“121人才梯队工程”专项资金资助项目(穗人社发[2011]167号)
【分类号】：R781.5

【参考文献】