Article type
Abstract
Objectives:This overview is to summarise the systematic reviews (SRs) about Shuxuetong injection for ischaemic stroke (IS), and to evaluate the methodological quality and the current evidence from these SRs.
Methods:We searched 6 databases (including CNKI, Wan Fang, VIP, SinoMed, Cochrane Library and PubMed) until October 2016, and included the SRs of randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) concerning Shuxuetong injection for IS. The AMSTAR scale was used to evaluate the methodological quality.
Results:Ten reviews (involving 136 RCTs with more than 11 508 participants) were included in this overview, the AMSTAR scales of these reviews were 3 to 7 with an average of 5.6. Most of the reviews assessed clinical efficiency (9/10, 90.0%), neurological deficits score (8/10, 80.0%) and adverse events (7/10, 70.0%). Some reviews assessed mortality (1/10, 10.0%), cure rate (1/10, 10.0%), efficiency (1/10, 10.0%) and activities of daily living (1/10, 10.0%). The overall effect of Shuxuetong injection was better than the control group. Seven reviews (involve 54 RCTs) reported adverse events, 43 RCTs showed there were no adverse reaction and 11 RCTs showed a slight adverse reaction (including poor appetite, nausea, vomiting, subcutaneous ecchymosis, rash, low thermal or facial redness).
Conclusions: There may be marked advantages about Shuxuetong injection for IS, but more high-quality studies are needed. We can report reviews according to AMSTAR scale for a standardisation report. Evidence-based medicine experts should carry out more training courses about the methods of clinical research and SRs.
Methods:We searched 6 databases (including CNKI, Wan Fang, VIP, SinoMed, Cochrane Library and PubMed) until October 2016, and included the SRs of randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) concerning Shuxuetong injection for IS. The AMSTAR scale was used to evaluate the methodological quality.
Results:Ten reviews (involving 136 RCTs with more than 11 508 participants) were included in this overview, the AMSTAR scales of these reviews were 3 to 7 with an average of 5.6. Most of the reviews assessed clinical efficiency (9/10, 90.0%), neurological deficits score (8/10, 80.0%) and adverse events (7/10, 70.0%). Some reviews assessed mortality (1/10, 10.0%), cure rate (1/10, 10.0%), efficiency (1/10, 10.0%) and activities of daily living (1/10, 10.0%). The overall effect of Shuxuetong injection was better than the control group. Seven reviews (involve 54 RCTs) reported adverse events, 43 RCTs showed there were no adverse reaction and 11 RCTs showed a slight adverse reaction (including poor appetite, nausea, vomiting, subcutaneous ecchymosis, rash, low thermal or facial redness).
Conclusions: There may be marked advantages about Shuxuetong injection for IS, but more high-quality studies are needed. We can report reviews according to AMSTAR scale for a standardisation report. Evidence-based medicine experts should carry out more training courses about the methods of clinical research and SRs.