|
| Treating ankylosing spondylitis with sinomenine by systematic reiview of randomized controlled trial |
| Hits 1990 Download times 1719 Received:November 09, 2013 |
| View Full Text View/Add Comment Download reader |
| DOI
10.11656/j.issn.1672-1519.2014.02.04 |
| Key Words
sinomenine;ankylosing spondylitis;randomized controlled trial;systematic review;Meta-analysis |
| Author Name | Affiliation | E-mail | | LIU Wei | Department of Rheumatism, The First Affiliated Hospital of Tianjin University of TCM, Tianjin 300193, China | | | WU Yuan-hao | Department of Rheumatism, The First Affiliated Hospital of Tianjin University of TCM, Tianjin 300193, China | doctor.wuyh@gmail.com | | WU Jing-jin | Tianjin University of TCM, Tianjin 300193, China | |
|
| Abstract
|
| [Objective] To investigate the safety and efficiency of sinomenine (SIN) on Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS). [Method] Alone with hand searches, systematic searches on line were conducted on China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, China Biology Medicine disc, Chongqing database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until March 2013. Literatures of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving SIN alone or with other treatment for AS. According to the Cochrane Handbook version 5.1, all the data were extracted from the selected studies independently with strict screening and cross-checking. Then the methodological quality evaluation of trials and the risk assessment of bias were undertaken with Cochrane Collaboration's tool. RevMan was employed to estimate the heterogeneity and carry out the meta-analyses and the funnel plot. [Results] Seven studies were included, all of which had reported the adverse effects. Six studies reported the effective rate. The results of meta-analysis suggested that the effective rate of SIN treating group was high than the control group [OR=2.48, 95% CI(1.49, 4.11)]. There was no statistical difference between the rates of adverse events of groups [OR=1.06, 95%CI (0.67, 1.68)]. The occiput-to-wall distance was shorter and Schober's test resulted better in the SIN treating group. There was no significant difference of the chest expansion and finger-to-floor distance between two groups. The ESR and CRP were lower in the SIN treating group. [Conclusion] Based on the evidences available, SIN is effective and safe for treating AS. But it is still difficult to draw a dependable conclusion from the evidence at present, considering the limitations and bias of the system analysis and the included studies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
