中药治疗高尿酸血症的系统评价再评价＊

目的 对中药治疗高尿酸血症的系统评价进行再评价。方法 计算机检索英文数据库PubMed、The Cochrane Library、EMbase和中文数据库CNKI、WanFang Data、VIP数据库,搜集中药治疗高尿酸血症的系统评价（SR）/Meta,检索时限为建库至2021年6月。应用AMSTAR2量表、PRISMA声明和GRADE方法对纳入的研究进行评价。结果 最终纳入7个SR/Meta,均分析了临床有效率,5篇个对血尿酸水平进行了分析。AMSTAR2方法学质量评价为极低;得分较差的条目为条目2、7、9、10、12、16。PRISMA报告质量问题主要表现在资金支持、资料条目、方案与注册、单个研究偏倚方面。GRADE进行证据体评价,质量普遍较低。结论 中药治疗高尿酸血症在临床疗效方面有优势,并减少不良反应发生率,但纳入研究的方法学质量不高,证据体质量低,在以后的临床研究设计中应加强试验的设计,为中药治疗高尿酸血症临床疗效提供依据。

Systematic Evaluation and Re-evaluation of Chinese Medicine for the Treatment of Hyperuricemia

Objective To re-evaluated the systematic evaluation of Chinese medicine for the treatment of hyperuric acidemia.Methods The computer retrieved the databases of PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP to collect a SR/Meta for the treatment of hyperuric acidemia in Chinese medicine, with a search time limit of June 2021. The included studies were evaluated by AMSTAR2 scale, PRISMA declaration and GRADE method.Results The results were included in 7 SR/Meta, all of which analyzed clinical efficiency and 5 analyzed blood uric acid levels. The AMSTAR2 methodology quality was evaluated as very low, and the items with poor scores were entries 2, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 16. The quality problems of PRISMA report were mainly manifested in the aspects of financial support, data items, scheme and registration, and individual research bias. GRADE conducted an evidence evaluation; the quality was generally low.Conclusion The treatment of hyperuric acidemia in traditional Chinese medicine can improve clinical efficacy and reduce adverse reactions, but there is less literature; and the quality of methodology is not high; the quality of evidence is low; the top-level design of clinical trials should be strengthened to provide a basis for evaluating the clinical efficacy of Chinese medicine in the treatment of hyperuricemia.