Traditional Chinese Medicine in the treatment of recurrent respiratory tract infections in children: an overview of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses.

Abstract

To evaluate and summarise the evidence from published Meta-analyses/systematic reviews (MAs/SRs) of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) in the treatment of recurrent respiratory tract infections (RRTIs) and to provide a scientific basis for the clinical treatment of RRTIs with TCM. Studies were retrieved from Chinese and English databases including the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang database, China Science and Technology Journal Database, SinoMed, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and EMbase from their establishment date to March 2023. Involved studies were screened, extracted, and evaluated for quality by two researchers independently. The a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR) 2 scale was used for methodological quality evaluation, as well as the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement for report quality evaluation, the risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool for risk of bias, and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) quality assessment tool for evidence quality. Twenty MAs/SRs studies were included, including analyses of 274 original studies involving 38 335 patients with RRTIs. The AMSTAR 2 scale evaluation results showed that 19 studies were of very low quality and one of moderate quality. The ROBIS evaluation results showed that 11 MAs/SRs were at high risk and nine at low risk of bias. The PRISMA 2020 report quality showed the included studies had scores between 23.5 and 35.5, among them one with high quality, 17 with moderate quality and two with low quality. The GRADE system results showed that among 126 outcome indicators, only 17 had moderate quality of evidence, 27 had low quality, 82 had very low quality, and none had high quality. The MAs/SRs methodological quality of using TCM for treatment RRTIs is generally poor, the quality of reports as well as of evidence is generally low, and the risk of bias is high; therefore we should treat these results with caution.