Abstract

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine in preventing kidney damage caused by Henoch-Schonlein Purpura (HSP) in Children by meta-analysis. Methods. We systematically searched the main Chinese and English electronic databases and collected randomized controlled trials of Chinese herbs in children with HSP until July 2018. Then we used the bias risk assessment tool in Cochrane Handbook 5. 1. 0 to complete the risk assessment of the included studies. We utilized STATA12.0 and RevMan 5.3 for meta-analysis and GRADE pro. for quality evaluation of evidence. Result. (1) Meta-analysis: data from 39 studies, representing 3643 individuals, were included in the analysis. Thirty-seven studies were treated with traditional Chinese medicine for clearing away heat and cooling blood, which were combined. On this basis, subgroup analysis was conducted according to the bias risk of the original study. It showed that Chinese herbs can significantly improve the treatment effect (OR: 4.31, 95% CI [3.34, 5.57], P < 0.01) and reduce the risk of renal damage (RR: 0.36; 95% CI [0.21, 0.61], P < 0.01) and the risk of recurrence (RR: 0.43, 95% CI [0.34, 0.54], P<0.01). (2) Side effect: a total of 7 studies described adverse reactions, and 12 of 319 patients in therapy group had adverse events and 20 of 263 patients in control group. (3) Publication bias: the bias risk Egger's test for the incidence of kidney injury was P=0.572, the relapse rate Egger's test was P=0.175, the efficiency was combined with the low-risk original study, and the bias risk Egger's test was P=0.175. There was not any significant publication bias based on the funnel plot and Egger's test. (4) GRADE evaluation: GRADE evaluation showed that the quality of evidence in the risk of renal damage and recurrence rate was moderate. Conclusion. Chinese medicine treatment can prevent the occurrence of renal damage in children with HSP and can reduce the recurrence rate, the incidence of adverse reactions, and the effect in terms of efficiency. However, the quality of the included studies in the meta-analysis and the quality of the evidence of outcomes were not high; the clinical use of the evidence needs to be cautious.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.