Abstract Background Angina pectoris (AP) is the primary symptom of coronary heart disease. Evidence has shown Chinese herbal medicines can bring benefits to patients suffering from AP. There are many kinds of herbal medicines. However, the difference between them has not been systematically analysed. It is uncertain which one is better. For comparison and ranking, a systematic review and network meta-analysis is needed. Methods We will search for the following 6 electronic databases: China Biological Medicine DataBase(CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI), WanFang Database, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library, from inception to May 2021. Randomized controlled trials, which aim to assess the efficacy and safety of 5 kinds of Chinese herbal medicine for AP will be included. The outcomes include reduction of AP, improvement of the electrocardiogram and adverse events. The study screening and data extraction will be presented by 2 researchers. The risk of bias will be assessed according to the Cochrane handbook. A Bayesian network meta-analysis will be performed to compare the efficacy of 5 Chinese herbal medicines. Surface under the cumulative rank curve value will be calculated to rank the efficacy of each herbal medicine. Discussion Our protocol will be expected that the results of this study will provide evidence for Clinical Practice Guideline, clinical decisions, and development of proprietary Chinese medicines. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019146185.
Integration of Chinese medical drugs (CMD) and western medicine (WM) has been widely used in the treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CMD for COVID-19.
With the development of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) syndrome knowledge accumulation and artificial intelligence (AI), this study proposes a holistic TCM syndrome differentiation model for the classification prediction of multiple TCM syndromes based on deep learning and accelerates the construction of modern foundational TCM equipment.
Abstract Introduction: COVID-19 is now a global pandemic. Although there are very few studies describing the characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with prostate cancer, these patients are likely to be more susceptible to COVID-19 than healthy people because of their immunosuppressed state. However, there is no evidence that prostate cancer is a risk factor for COVID-19. Methods: We searched the Wanfang database, the China Science Journal Citation Report (VIP database), the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Web of Science, EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library for studies related to the topic. We designed a standardized data extraction sheet and used Epidata software 3.1 for data extraction. In accordance with the Cochrane 5.1.0 standard, both a quality assessment and a risk assessment were carried out for the research meeting the inclusion criteria. The data were analyzed using Revman 5.3 and Stata 13.0 software. Results: The study integrated existing research findings and a meta-analysis of the data to investigate the prevalence of prostate cancer in males infected with SARS-CoV-2 and the adverse clinical outcomes in male patients with or without COVID-19. Conclusion: The results of this research may provide a basis for judging if prostate cancer is a risk factor for males infected with SARS-CoV-2, and the findings can effectively help to prevent COVID-19 in patients with prostate cancer. Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval is not required for this systematic review as it will involve the collection and analysis of secondary data. The results of the review will be reported in international peer-reviewed journals PRORPERO registration number: CRD42020194071.
Since its outbreak in December 2019, a series of clinical trials on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been registered or carried out. However, the significant heterogeneity and less critical outcomes of such trials may be leading to a waste of research resources. This study aimed to develop a core outcome set (COS) for clinical trials on COVID-19 in order to tackle the outcome issues. The study was conducted according to the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Handbook: Version 1.0, a guideline for COS development. A research group was set up that included experts in respiratory and critical medicine, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), evidence-based medicine, clinical pharmacology, and statistics, in addition to medical journal editors. Clinical trial registry websites (www.chictr.org.cn and clinicaltrials.gov) were searched to retrieve clinical trial protocols and outcomes in order to form an outcome pool. A total of 78 clinical trial protocols on COVID-19 were included and 259 outcomes were collected. After standardization, 132 outcomes were identified within seven different categories, of which 58 were selected to develop a preliminary outcome list for further consensus. After two rounds of Delphi survey and one consensus meeting, the most important outcomes for the different clinical classifications of COVID-19 were identified and determined to constitute the COS for clinical trials on COVID-19 (COS-COVID). The COS-COVID includes one outcome for the mild type (time to 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negativity), four outcomes for the ordinary type (length of hospital stay, composite events, score of clinical symptoms, and time to 2019-nCoV RT-PCR negativity), five outcomes for the severe type (composite events, length of hospital stay, arterial oxygen partial pressure (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2), duration of mechanical ventilation, and time to 2019-nCoV RT-PCR negativity), one outcome for critical type (all-cause mortality), and one outcome for rehabilitation period (pulmonary function). The COS-COVID is currently the most valuable and practical clinical outcome set for the evaluation of intervention effect, and is useful for evidence assessment and decision-making. With a deepening understanding of COVID-19 and application feedback, the COS-COVID should be continuously updated.
Background: Post COVID-19 condition (PCC) has become a burgeoning public health concern following acute COVID-19. As global research of PCC booms, however, multiple methodological limitations have been highlighted, especially the heterogeneity and inconsistency between outcomes used in current clinical research. This study aimed to develop a core outcome set (COS) for clinical trials on PCC, i.e., what, when, and how to measure PCC.Methods: A comprehensive collection of outcomes (including their measurement methods and phases) was launched via literature review and clinician- and patient surveys. Two rounds of Delphi surveys were conducted under the predefined criteria for rating, followed by a consensus meeting to finalize the COS for PCC (COS-PCC).Findings: A total of 52 outcomes within seven categories and 206 measurement methods were identified. 60 participants from five stakeholder groups completed the first round of Delphi survey and 41 the second. Consensus was reached among 36 representatives on four domains of respiratory, physical, neuropsychological, and health conditions, including nine core outcomes and their respective measurement methods of priority: dyspnea (modified Medical Research Council scale), cough (Leicester Cough Questionnaire), exercise capacity (6-minute walk test), fatigue (Fatigue Severity Scale), pain (Numerical Rating Scale), sleeping disturbance (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), and health status (36-item Short Form Survey); 16 optional measurement methods achieved consensus for supplement. Measuring phases of each core outcome were prioritized by importance through short and long terms of PCC.Interpretation: This consensus-based multidimensional COS-PCC is intended to be used as a fundamental and practical outcome set in clinical trials and evidence synthesis, with the aim of supporting future clinical research and evaluation for PCC.Funding Information: This work was supported through grants provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant 82074583). JZ was supported by the National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine (grant RS2003).YJ was supported by the New Teachers' Research Program of TJUTCM (XJS2022103).Declaration of Interests: All authors declare no competing interests.Ethical Approval Statement: Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Evidence-based Medicine Center, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TJUTCM-EC20210009) to enable patients and their partners to participate.
To systematically review the efficacy and safety of Tongmai Yangxin Pills in treatment for angina pectoris of coronary heart disease. CNKI, WanFang, VIP, SinoMed, PubMed, EMbase and the Cochrane Library databases were retrieved online to collect randomized controlled trials(RCTs) of Tongmai Yangxin Pills for angina pectoris of coronary heart disease since the establishment to November 2018. Two investigators screened out literatures independently, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. The risk assessment of included references was made according to criteria recommended by Cochrane Handbook 5.3. Meta-analysis was then performed by RevMan 5.3 software. A total of 9 RCTs were included. The results of Meta-analysis showed that compared with the single application of chemotherapy, the combined administration with Tongmai Yangxin Pills and Western medicine could significantly improve the clinical efficacy of angina(RR=1.22, 95%CI[1.13, 1.31]), the improvement rate of electrocardiogram(RR=1.31, 95%CI[1.21, 1.42]), and the clinical efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine(TCM) syndrome(RR=1.17, 95%CI[1.02, 1.35]). Only one study reported adverse events, while 5 studies reported no adverse event. According to current evidences, in the treatment of angina pectoris of coronary heart disease, Tongmai Yangxin Pills has a better clinical efficacy in the treatment of angina pectoris of coronary heart disease in terms of the improvement rate of electrocardiogram and the clinical efficacy of TCM syndrome. Due to the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are required to verify the above conclusions.
'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(23.036 .093 25.536)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(45.87 1.273 16.18)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(69.945 .996 12.078)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(20.66 -19.689 31.932)'/%3e%3c/svg%3e)