头孢硫脒不良反应的Meta分析

目的 系统评价头孢硫脒临床使用的安全性。方法 计算机检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、中国生物医学文摘数据库(CBM)、中国期刊全文数据库(CNKI)、中文科技期刊数据库(VIP)和万方数据库(WanFang Data)，查寻国内外关于头孢硫脒临床安全性的随机对照试验(randomized controlled trials, RCTs)的报道。按照纳入与排除标准由研究者独立筛选文献、提取资料和评价纳入文献的方法学质量后，采用RevMan 5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果 最终纳入35篇文献，共收集观察组病例1913例，对照组病例1870例。Meta分析结果显示：头孢硫脒的不良反应发生率低于对照组[RR=0.35, 95%CI(0.27, 0.45)，P＜0.00001]，差异有统计学意义，结果具有显著性差异。结论 与其他同类药物相比，头孢硫脒的临床安全性相对较好，但临床应用中仍应密切关注其不良反应，更进一步的研究需要更多高质量的临床随机双盲对照试验补充验证。

Meta-analysis of adverse drug reactions of cefathiamidine

Objective To systematically evaluate the safety and efficiency of cefathiamidine in clinical applications with meta-analysis. Methods The databases of Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, and CBM were retrieved for collecting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the safety of cefathiamidine in clinical applications. The included RCTs were given strict reviews and the data were extracted. Then, the ones that met the criterion were given Meta-analysis by using the Rev Man 5.3 software. Results 35 papers involving 1913 cases as the treatment group and 1870 cases as the control group were included. The result of Meta-analysis showed that the rate of adverse reactions in cefathiamidine group was significantly lower than that in the control group [RR=0.35, 95% CI (0.27, 0.45), P<0.00001], which showed that the difference was statistically significant. In terms of curative effects, the efficiency was higher than that of the control group. Conclusion Compared with other similar drugs, clinical safety of cefathiamidine were relatively good, but the clinical applications should pay more attention to the adverse reactions. And further studies need more high quality randomized double-blind controlled trials of