【摘要】 目的 评价舒林酸治疗结直肠息肉的有效性和安全性。 方法 计算机检索PubMed、Cochrane Iibrary、Embase、SCI、CNKI、万方、维普、CBM数据库。按Cochrane系统评价的方法评价纳入研究质量，并进行Meta分析。 结果 共纳入7个随机对照试验（RCT），共235例患者。Meta分析结果显示舒林酸治疗腺瘤性息肉病（FAP）在有效率、息肉消失率方面与安慰剂比较，差异无统计学意义（Pgt;0.05）；治疗散发性结肠腺瘤性息肉病（SCAP）在有效率、息肉消失率、腺瘤直径变化方面与安慰剂比较，差异有统计学意义（Plt;0.05）；舒林酸的不良反应多为消化道症状，与安慰剂比较差异有统计学意义（Plt;0.05）。 结论 系统评价结果显示舒林酸对于家族性FAP的疗效尚不确切，而对SCAP有一定的疗效。【关键词】结直肠息肉；舒林酸；有效性；不良反应；系统评价【Abstract】 Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of sulindac on colorectal polyps. Methods The literatures were searched from several databases including PubMed,Cochrane Iibrary,SCI,CNKI,Wanfang,VIP,and CBM. The quality of the researches was evaluated according to Cochrane systematic reviews, and the Meta analysis was performed. Results Seven RCT were enrolled with a total of 235 patients. Meta analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the effective rate and polyps disappearance rate of FAP between the two groups (Pgt;0.05). There were significant differences in the effective rate, polyps disappearance rate and size of adenomas between the two groups (Plt;0.05); the most common adverse event was the symptoms of digestive tract which differed much from that in the placebo group (Plt;0.05). Conclusion The therapeutic effect of sulindac on FAP is not sure, but it is effective on SCAP.
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ramelteon for chronic insomnia in adults. Methods The following databases as CENTRAL, PubMed, EMbase, ISI, CNKI, CBMdisc, VIP and WanFang Data were searched from the date of their establishment to November 2010. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) meeting the inclusion criteria were included. The data extraction and quality assessment were conducted according to the methods of Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook recommend by The Cochrane Collaboration, and meta-analysis was performed with RevMan5.0 software. Results A total of 5 RCTs involving 1 772 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that: a) Effectiveness: In the effectiveness, ramelteon was superior to placebo in latency to persistent sleep (MD=18.36, 95%CI 11.55 to 25.18, Plt;0.000 01), total sleep time (MD= –15.47, 95%CI –22.50 to –8.43, Plt;0.000 1), sleep efficiency (MD= –3.39, 95%CI –5.32 to –1.46, P=0.000 6), sleep quality (MD=0.14, 95%CI 0.03 to 0.25, P=0.01) after one week treatment and latency to persistent sleep (MD=13.02, 95%CI 6.01 to 20.03, P=0.000 3) except for wake after sleep onset (MD= –8.79, 95%CI –17.24 to –0.35, P=0.04) after one month treatment. b) Safety: significant differences were only found in the female prolactin (MD=5.50, 95%CI 2.02 to 8.98, P=0.002) and male free testosterone (MD=15.30, 95%CI 0.62 to 29.98, P=0.04) between the two groups, rather than in all the other hormones concentration, rebound insomnia, withdrawal syndrome, next-day residual effects and incidence rate of adverse reactions. Conclusion Ramelteon has marked effects on adults’ chronic insomnia after 1-week treatment, but its effect is not obvious after 1-month treatment. The adverse reactions are mostly the somnolence, rising of male free testosterone and female prolactin concentration.
Objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of irbesartan for hypertensive patients with hyperuricaemia. Methods The databases such as The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2010), MEDLINE (by the end of April 2010), SCI (by the end of April 2010), CBM (by the end of April 2010) and CNKI (by the end of April 2010) were searched to collected randomized controlled trails (RCTs) on irbesartan for hypertensive combined with hyperuricaemia. Studies were screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria; data were extracted; the methodological quality was evaluated; and meta-analyses were conducted by using RevMan 5.0.0 software. Results Nine studies involving 977 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that compared with the control group, irbesartan was superior in decreasing serum uric acid (SUA) (MD=57.12, 95%CI 16.08 to 98.15, P=0.006); it was similar in controlling blood pressure (Systolic pressure: MD= –0.24, 95%CI –2.19 to 1.71, P=0.81; Diastolic pressure: MD=0.46, 95%CI –1.58 to 2.50, P=0.66), and lower in the incidence rate of adverse reaction (RR=0.07, 95%CI 0.02 to 0.24, P=0.000 1). Conclusion The study suggests that irbesartan is effective and safe to control blood pressure and decrease serum uric acid for hypertensive patients with hyperuricaemia. But because all nine included studies are graded C in quality, the conclusion still needs to be further verified by long-term, large scale and high quality studies.
Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of mesalazine versus sulfasalazine in the treatment of ulcerative colitis.Methods The literatures were searched from PubMed (1966 to January 2010), the Cochrane Library (1966 to January 2010), EMbase (1974 to January 2010), CNKI (1994 to January 2010), VIP (1989 to January 2010), and CBM (1978 to January 2010). The data were extracted, the quality of studies was evaluated according to The Cochrane Handbook, and meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.0 software. Results Sixteen RCTs involving 1 333 patients were included in this study. The results of meta-analyses showed that the total effective rate of the mesalazine group was significantly higher than that of the sulfasalazine group (RR=1.10, 95%CI 1.04 to 1.17, Plt;0.05), and significant differences were noted in the total remission rate (RR=1.82, 95%CI 1.14 to 2.91, Plt;0.05), while there was no significant difference in the relapse rate between the two groups (RR=0.86, 95%CI 0.57 to 1.29, Pgt;0.05). Twelve RCTs reported adverse effects and meta-analyses showed that the incidence of adverse effects was significantly lower in the mesalazine group than in the sulfasalazine group (RR=0.56, 95%CI 0.42 to 0.73, Plt;0.05). Conclusion Analyses show that mesalazine is much more effective and safe in the management of ulcerative colitis than sulfasalazine. However, there is a moderate risk of bias due to methodological quality problems in all 16 included RCTs, so more strictly-designed multi-centered randomized controlled trials with high quality in large-scale are needed to confirm this result.
Objective To review the efficacy and safety of Kushenin combined with Adefovir Dipivoxil for Chronic Hepatitis B (CHB). Method Randomized controlled trails of Kushenin combined with Adefovir Dipivoxil for CHB were gathered from PubMed, CBMdisc (1978 to 2009), and CSJD (1989 to 2009), while other relative researches were searched manually; every research was evaluated, and then analyzed with RevMan 5.0.0 software. Result Ten randomized controlled trials were included; among total 855 patients, 436 were in trial group and the other 419 were in control group. As the Meta-analysis showed, the therapeutic effect of kushenin combined with Adefovir Dipivoxil was better than that of Adefovir Dipivoxil in aspects of improving the negative rate of serum ALT (RR=1.28, 95%CI 1.17 to 1.40), the negative rate of serum HBV-DNA (RR=1.27, 95%CI 1.13 to 1.42), the negative rate of serum HBeAg (RR=1.80, 95%CI 1.32 to 2.44), and the conversion rate of HBeAg and anti-HBe (RR2.06, 95%CI 1.43 to 2.95). Conclusion Kushenin combined with Adefovir Dipivoxil in treating CHB can improve the conversion rate of HBeAg and anti-HBe and further take better therapeutic effect.