祛湿法治疗流行性感冒的系统评价

发布时间：2018-03-14 06:04

本文选题：流行性感冒　切入点：祛湿中药　出处：《广州中医药大学》2016年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：目的：本研究旨在全面收集国内外关于配伍祛湿功效中药治疗流行性感冒的随机对照试验研究,对其进行信息提取、偏倚风险评估,然后使用统计学方法对所有数据进行合并,以评价配伍祛湿药物治疗流行性感冒的疗效及安全性,为临床运用提供循证证据。方法：计算机检索PubMed.Embase(embase.com).CENTRAL(chorance libary),中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、维普期刊数据库(VIP),万方数据库(WanFang Data)和中国知网(CNKI),查找公开发表的有关中药治疗流行性感冒的随机对照试验(RCT),检索时限均为建库至2015年9月24日,并查找相关会议论文文献,文献文种限中文和英文,发表时间不限。由2位评价者根据纳入排除标准独立筛选文献,提取资料并交叉核对后进行方法学质量评价,而后运用RevMen5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果：共纳入21项随机对照研究文献,包括4024例流行性感冒患者。研究结果显示：其中结局指标报告了临床疗效改善情况的RCT共19个,包含3930例流行性感冒患者。在临床疗效总体改善方面,祛湿中药治疗组与西药及不含祛湿药物的中成药治疗组比较[RR=1.19,95% CI(1.15,1.24)],差异具有统计学意义；报告了24小时完全退热病人数的RCT共7个,包含997例流行性感冒患者,祛湿中药治疗组与西药及不含祛湿药物的中成药治疗组比较[RR=1.56,95% CI(1.21,2.01)],差异具有统计学意义；结局指标中报告了完全退热时间的RCT共4个,包含198例流行性感冒患者,祛湿中药治疗组与西药及不含祛湿药物的中成药治疗组退热时间比较[MD=-5.36,95% CI(-16.68,5.96)],差异不具有统计学意义。祛湿中药组的不良反应主要表现为胃肠道不适,西药对照组的不良反应主要表现为胃肠道反应及皮疹,不良反应发生率比较[OR=0.09,95% CI(0.04,0.22)],差异具有统计学意义。结论：具有祛湿功效中药治疗流行性感冒疗效优于西药治疗及不含祛湿药物中成药。由于纳入研究数量限制,及文献质量水平不高,上述结论尚需要进一步开展更多高质量、大样本RCT加以验证。
[Abstract]:Objective: the purpose of this study was to collect the randomized controlled trials of compatibility with traditional Chinese medicine for eliminating dampness in the treatment of influenza at home and abroad, to extract information and assess the risk of bias, and then to combine all the data with statistical method. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of combined antidampness drugs in the treatment of influenza. Methods: to provide evidence based on evidence for clinical application. Methods: computer search for PubMed.Embase(embase.com).CENTRAL(chorance libaryi, Chinese biomedical literature database, Weipu journal database, Wan Fang data and CNKII, to find publicly published information on the prevalence of traditional Chinese medicine treatment. In the randomized controlled trial of sex cold, the search time was from the construction of the database to September 24th 2015. The relevant papers were searched for Chinese and English, and the time for publication was unlimited. The two evaluators independently screened the documents according to the exclusion criteria, extracted the data and cross-checked them to evaluate the quality of the methodology. Then Meta analysis was performed with RevMen5.3 software. Results: a total of 21 randomized controlled studies, including 4,024 influenza patients, were included. The results showed that 19 RCT patients reported the improvement of clinical efficacy. There were 3 930 cases of influenza patients. In the aspect of general improvement of clinical curative effect, there was significant difference between the treatment group of removing dampness with western medicine and the group of traditional Chinese patent medicine without removing dampness [RRRN 1.1995% CI1.15 ~ 1.24]. A total of 7 cases of RCT with complete antipyretic disease in 24 hours were reported, including 997 cases of influenza patients. There were significant differences between the treatment group of traditional Chinese medicine for removing dampness and the treatment group of western medicine and traditional Chinese patent medicine without damp-dispelling drugs [RRRN 1.5695% CI 1.21C 2.01]. There were 4 cases of RCT with complete antipyretic time reported in the outcome index, including 198 cases of influenza. The antipyretic time of the traditional Chinese medicine group was not significantly different from that of the western medicine group and the traditional Chinese patent medicine group without damp-dispelling medicine [MD-5.36 ~ 95% CI-16.68 ~ 5.96]. The main adverse reactions in the dampness Chinese medicine group were gastrointestinal discomfort. The main adverse reactions in the control group were gastrointestinal reaction and rash. The incidence of adverse reactions was compared [ORG 0.09 95% CIQ 0.04 + 0.22], the difference was statistically significant. Conclusion: the curative effect of traditional Chinese medicine with dispelling dampness is better than that of western medicine and traditional Chinese patent medicine without dampness dispelling drugs. And the literature quality level is not high, the above conclusion still needs to develop more high quality, large sample RCT to verify.
【学位授予单位】：广州中医药大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：R254.9

【相似文献】