Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

Shengmai Injection, a Traditional Chinese Patent Medicine, for Intradialytic Hypotension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Read this article at

Bookmark
      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

      Abstract

      Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is a global public health problem. A rising number of IDH sufferers resort to Chinese patent medicine, Shengmai Injection (SMI) in China. The objectives of present study are to assess the effectiveness and safety of SMI as an adjunct therapy for IDH. A systematic search of 6 medical databases was performed up to December 2011. Randomized trials involving SMI adjuvant therapy versus conventional therapy were identified. RevMan 5.0 was used for data analysis. Ten randomized clinical trials with 437 participants were identified. Methodological quality was considered inadequate in all trials. Compared with conventional therapy, SMI adjunct therapy showed significant effects in improving the clinic effective rate (P < 0.01), decreasing the incidence of IDH episode (P < 0.01), decreasing the frequency of nursing interventions (P < 0.01), and increasing diastolic blood pressure (P < 0.01). There was no statistical significance in the improvement of mean arterial pressure (P = 0.22) and systolic blood pressure (P = 0.08) between two groups. Four studies had mentioned adverse events, but no serious adverse effects were reported in any of the included trials. In conclusion, SMI adjunct therapy appears to be potentially effective in treatment of IDH and is generally safe. However, further rigorous designed trials are needed.

      Related collections

      Most cited references 79

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

        Bookmark
        • Record: found
        • Abstract: found
        • Article: found
        Is Open Access

        CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials

        Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the 2010 version of the CONSORT Statement, which updates the previous reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulated experience.
          Bookmark
          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group.

          Method guidelines for systematic reviews of trials of treatments for neck and back pain. To help review authors design, conduct and report systematic reviews of trials in this field. In 1997, the Cochrane Back Review Group published Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews, which was updated in 2003. Since then, new methodologic evidence has emerged and standards have changed. Coupled with the upcoming revisions to the software and methods required by The Cochrane Collaboration, it was clear that revisions were needed to the existing guidelines. The Cochrane Back Review Group editorial and advisory boards met in June 2006 to review the relevant new methodologic evidence and determine how it should be incorporated. Based on the discussion, the guidelines were revised and circulated for comment. As sections of the new Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were made available, the guidelines were checked for consistency. A working draft was made available to review authors in The Cochrane Library 2008, issue 3. The final recommendations are divided into 7 categories: objectives, literature search, inclusion criteria, risk of bias assessment, data extraction, data analysis, and updating your review. Each recommendation is classified into minimum criteria (mandatory) and further guidance (optional). Instead of recommending Levels of Evidence, this update adopts the GRADE approach to determine the overall quality of the evidence for important patient-centered outcomes across studies and includes a new section on updating reviews. Citations of previous versions of the method guidelines in published scientific articles (1997: 254 citations; 2003: 209 citations, searched February 10, 2009) suggest that others may find these guidelines useful to plan, conduct, or evaluate systematic reviews in the field of spinal disorders.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Affiliations
            Department of Cardiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical College, Wenzhou, Zhejiang 325027, China
            Author notes
            *Ji-fei Tang: jifeitang@ 123456sina.com and

            Academic Editor: Wolfgang Weidenhammer

            Journal
            Evid Based Complement Alternat Med
            Evid Based Complement Alternat Med
            ECAM
            Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine : eCAM
            Hindawi Publishing Corporation
            1741-427X
            1741-4288
            2013
            7 February 2013
            7 February 2013
            : 2013
            23476700
            3582050
            10.1155/2013/703815
            Copyright © 2013 Chao-yang Chen et al.

            This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

            Categories
            Review Article

            Complementary & Alternative medicine

            Comments

            Comment on this article