中药复方治疗卵巢储备功能低下的Meta 分析

目的：采用循证医学研究中药复方治疗卵巢储备功能低下的临床效果,从而更好的指导临床用药。方法：通过计算机和手工检索中药复方治疗卵巢储备功能低下的临床文献,建立“中药复方对卵巢储备功能低下的临床研究文献评价表”,比较中药复方和西医治疗该病随机对照试验的疗效,对文献的一般情况、诊断纳入排除标准、疗效标准、研究方案设计等进行分析,并用RevMan5.2进行Meta分析。结果：共检索相关文献137篇,13篇纳入系统质量评价。其中,8篇采用随机数字表分组,5篇采用随机分组,13篇有纳入和排除标准,12篇有具体的统计学方法、统计量和P值,2篇提到随访,1篇体现失访,3篇提及观察不良反应,所有文献都未描述是否实施分配方案的隐匿。结论：现有临床文献所评价的中药复方对卵巢储备功能低下的临床研究较西医有一定优势,不同中药复方的疗效也有差异,是一种很有前景的治疗手段。但由于最终进行Meta分析的临床研究较少,且文献本身方法学质量较低,各个试验存在潜在的发表偏倚,具有一定的局限性,故本系统评价尚不能对中药复方对卵巢储备功能低下的临床有效性和安全性做出肯定结论。

Meta-analysis on Compound Chinese Medicine Treatment of Diminished Ovarian Reserve

Evidence-based medicine was used in the study of the compound Chinese medicine treatment of diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) in order to provide better guidance for clinical medication. Computer and manual retrieval were used in the selection of clinical research literatures on DOR. The "clinical research literature evaluation on compound Chinese medicine treatment of DOR" was established to compare the clinical efficiency between compound Chinese medicine and modern medicine treatment of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Analysis was made on the general situation of literature, inclusion and exclusion criteria, curative standard, study design and etc. RevMan5.2 was used in the meta-analysis. The results showed that among 137 retrieved relevant literatures, 13 articles were included into the quality evaluation system. Among them, 8 articles adopt the method of random number table group; 5 articles were grouped randomly; 11 articles were with clear inclusion and exclusion criteria; 12 articles had specific statistical methods, specific statistic and P values; 2 articles mentioned follow-up; 1 article showed lost to follow-up; 3 articles referred to observe adverse reactions. Allocation concealment was not described in any of these literatures. It was concluded that the current clinical literature evaluation of compound Chinese medicine treatment of DOR had certain advantage compared with modern medicine treatment. The curative effects of different compound Chinese medicine were different. It is a promising treatment method. However, because the ultimate metaanalysis of clinical studies was less, and the literature itself was of low methodological quality, and each test had a potential publication bias and certain limitation, the evaluation system was not able to provide an identified conclusion for the clinical efficacy and safety of compound Chinese medicine treatment of DOR.