To study the efficacy of Chinese medicine (CM) on isolated systolic hypertension. Seven electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published until August 2015. Subgroup analyses and met...To study the efficacy of Chinese medicine (CM) on isolated systolic hypertension. Seven electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published until August 2015. Subgroup analyses and meta-analysis were performed to assess the efficacy and safety of the included studies. A total of 24 studies, including 2,096 patients (1,058 patients in the intervention group and 1,038 in the control group), were evaluated in the final analysis. Compared with a conventional therapy used alone, CM as additional intervention was more effective on systolic blood pressure [mean difference (MD)=-0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI)=(-0.97,-0.36), P < 0.00001] and significantly diminished the pulse pressure [MD=-7.49, CI=(-12.69,-2.29), P < 0.00001]. However it showed no additional benefit on diastolic blood pressure [MD=1.16, CI=(0.02, 2.29), P=0.87]. Adverse events were not explicitly reported in most RCTs. CM might be a promising approach for the elderly with isolated systolic hypertension, while the evidence for CM employed alone was insufficient. Considering the inherent limitations of the included studies, larger high-quality RCTs with extensive follow-up should be performed to validate our findings in the future.展开更多
基金Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China(No.81102721 and No.81202805)a Planned Technologic Item of State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine(No.04-05LP30)+2 种基金Chinese National Scientific Fund for Post-Doctor(No.20070410622)its Special Aid Item(No.201003226)the Key Technologies R&D Program of Shandong Province,China(No.2010 GSF 10289)
文摘To study the efficacy of Chinese medicine (CM) on isolated systolic hypertension. Seven electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published until August 2015. Subgroup analyses and meta-analysis were performed to assess the efficacy and safety of the included studies. A total of 24 studies, including 2,096 patients (1,058 patients in the intervention group and 1,038 in the control group), were evaluated in the final analysis. Compared with a conventional therapy used alone, CM as additional intervention was more effective on systolic blood pressure [mean difference (MD)=-0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI)=(-0.97,-0.36), P < 0.00001] and significantly diminished the pulse pressure [MD=-7.49, CI=(-12.69,-2.29), P < 0.00001]. However it showed no additional benefit on diastolic blood pressure [MD=1.16, CI=(0.02, 2.29), P=0.87]. Adverse events were not explicitly reported in most RCTs. CM might be a promising approach for the elderly with isolated systolic hypertension, while the evidence for CM employed alone was insufficient. Considering the inherent limitations of the included studies, larger high-quality RCTs with extensive follow-up should be performed to validate our findings in the future.
