|
| Traditional Chinese Herbal Medicine for Perimenopausal Depression of Chinese Women: A Meta‑analysis |
| |
| View Full Text View/Add Comment Download reader |
| DOI：10.4103/wjtcm.wjtcm_12_17 |
| KeyWord:Meta‑analysis, perimenopausal depression, randomized controlled trial, traditional Chinese herbal medicine |
| Author | Institution |
| Ying Zhanga |
a.Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Guang’anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences,Beijing, China |
| Lin-Jie Xub |
b.Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Guang’anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine |
| Yu Zhengc |
c.School of Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China |
| Feng-Quan Xua |
a.Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Guang’anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences,Beijing, China |
|
| Hits: 1360 |
| Download times: 1674 |
| Abstract: |
| Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of traditional Chinese herbal medicine (TCHM) in treatment of perimenopausal depression (PD) in China. Methods: To identify randomized controlled trials, an electronic search has been conducted through databases as follows: PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Chinese Biological Medicine Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, and WanFang Digital Periodicals Database. Methodological quality was evaluated by Cochrane Collaboration’s tool which is able to assess the risk of bias in Review Manager Software. What’s more, meta‑analysis was performed by using Cochrane Collaboration’s RevMan 5.2 software, (Nordic Cochrane Centre, Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, and Denmark). Dichotomous data were analyzed by using relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous variables were analyzed using weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% CI. Subgroup analysis was performed by the type of medicine which was used in the experimental group. Results: This meta‑analysis includes 11 randomized control trials with 818 patients. Compared to the control group (RR: 1.14, 95% CI: [1.03, 1.26], P = 0.009 and WMD: −2.09, 95% CI: [ −3.58, −0.18]), the experimental group had a significant higher clinical efficacy rate and relatively lower Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM‑D) score. For clinical efficacy rate, the results varied depending on the detail treatment measures of the experimental group. In the experimental group with TCHM, no significant difference was observed (RR: 1.14, 95% CI: [0.97, 1.33]), while in the experimental group combined with western medicine, a significant difference in the clinical efficacy rate between the experimental group and control group showed up (RR: 1.15, 95% CI: [1.01, 1.32], P = 0.04). For the HAM‑D score, subgroup analyses revealed that the pure TCHM therapy was not associated with significant HAM‑D score reduction compared to the control group (WMD: −2.48, 95% CI: [−6.00, 1.03], P = 0.17). However, in the experimental group where western medicine was added to, the HAM‑D score decreased statistically compared to the control group (WMD: −1.88, 95% CI: [−3.58, −0.18], P = 0.03). There is no serious adverse event in both groups. Conclusions: Combination therapy of TCHM and western medicine is more effective in treating PD in terms of clinical efficacy rate. However, the results should be interpreted with caution due to the mediocre methodological quality of the included trials. |
| Close |
|
|
|