Re-evaluation for systematic reviews of traditional Chinese medicine in the treatment of chronic bronchitis.

Abstract

Chronic bronchitis (CB) is a common clinical chronic respiratory disease, which has a high incidence in the middle aged and elderly population. With the development of the disease, the number of acute attacks becomes more and more frequent, which leads to the continuous decrease of lung function. If not treated in time, it will lead to a variety of complications and seriously affect the quality of life of patients. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) or TCM combined with western medicine is highly effective in the treatment of CB disease. In recent years, there are many systematic reviews on the use of TCM therapy in the treatment of CB, and the efficacy and safety of TCM in the treatment of CB diseases are evaluated. The aim of this study was to re-evaluate the Meta analysis/Systematic reviews (MAs/SRs) of TCM for the treatment of CB, aiming to provide a clinical basis for the treatment of CB by TCM. Retrieval among Chinese and English databases such as China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang database, China Scientific Journals Database, SinoMed, PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library and EMbase, etc. were conducted within the duration from database establish Tion date to March 2023.The included research was independently conducted by 2 researchers for literature screening, data extraction, and quality evaluation. The AMSTAR 2 scale was used to evaluate the quality of the report, the PRISMA 2020 statement evaluated the quality of the report, the ROBIS tool evaluated the risk of bias, and the GRADE quality evaluation tool evaluated the quality of the evidence. Fifteen MAs/SRs were included, for a total of 224 studies involving 20,710 patients with CB. The 15 studies included in AMSTAR 2 are of very low quality. The ROBIS evaluation results showed that 8 MAs/SRs were considered to have high risk and 7 with low risk. The PRISMA 2020 report quality showed evaluation results of the included studies scores between 24 and 30, among them 13 with high quality and 2 with low quality. The GRADE system results showed that, within 70 outcome indicators, only 14 of them have moderate quality for evidence, with 31 for low quality, 25 for very low quality, and none for high quality. The MAs/SRs methodological quality of using TCM for treatment CB is generally poor, the quality of reports as well as evidence are generally low, and the risk of bias is high, therefore we should treat these results with caution.