Objective To systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Resina Draconis for pressure ulcer. Methods Such databases as The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2013), PubMed, Elsevier SDOL, Web of Knowledge, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were searched from inception to May 2013 to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about Resina Draconis for pressure ulcer. Two reviewers were assigned to independently screen the literature according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, extract data, and appraise the methodological quality. Then, meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.2.4 software. Results A total of 14 RCTs were included, involving 610 patients. The results of meta-analysis showed that, Resina Draconis treatment were associated with a higher effective rate for pressure ulcer (RR=1.17, 95%CI 1.08 to 1.26, Plt;0.000 1). The results of descriptive analysis showed that, compared with the control group, Resina Draconis treatment shortened healing time. As for safety, adverse reactions had not been reported. Conclusion Resina Draconis can improve the effective rate for pressure ulcer and shorten the healing time, compared with other drug treatments. However, due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, this conclusion needs to be proved by more high quality studies.
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is one of the most common immune-mediated diseases, and the interaction between the intestinal microbiota and the patient’s immune system may play a role in the occurrence and development of RA. Methotrexate (MTX), as a first-line drug for the treatment of RA, can be directly and indirectly influenced by intestinal microbiota and its enzyme products to affect the bioavailability, clinical efficacy, and toxicity of the drug. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the mechanism by which intestinal microbiota affects RA and the impact of intestinal microbiota on the efficacy of MTX. This article provides a review of the mechanisms by which intestinal microbiota may contribute to the pathogenesis of RA, as well as the role and impact of intestinal microbiota in MTX drug metabolism and treatment response.
Objective To survey the current situation of the systematic review (SR)/ meta-analysis (MA) related to interventions published in the Chinese medical journals entitled with evidence-based. Methods According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine (2001.1 to 2011.12), the Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine (2001.1 to 2011.12), the Chinese Journal of Evidence Based Pediatrics (2006.1 to 2011.12) and the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Cardiovascular Medicine (2008.1 to 2011.12) were searched for SRs/MAs related to interventions. Two reviewers extracted data independently using predesigned a data extraction form, crosschecked data, and discussed to solve discrepancy. Excel software was used to for statistical analysis. Results A total of 487 SRs/MAs were included. 379 (77.82%) SRs/MAs were published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 70 (14.38%) in the Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 30 (6.17%) in Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Pediatrics, and 8 (1.63%) in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Cardiovascular Medicine. The number of SRs/MAs published generally increased during 2001 to 2011. The number of author of SRs/MAs was 5±2, the number of studies that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SRs/MAs varied from 1 to 129 (median: 8), involving 20 diseases. 83 (17.04%) SRs/MAs focused on neoplasms, 64 (17.04%) on diseases of the circulatory system, and 54 (11.09%) on diseases of the genitourinary system. 82.75% of the included 487 SRs/MAs assessed the methodological quality of included RCTs. 44 (9.03%) SRs/MAs mentioned the methods of quality assessment, without reporting the results. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias was the most frequently used for evaluation (314 SRs/MAs, 64.48%). Conclusion The number of SRs/MAs related to interventions published in the journals entitled with evidence-based is increasing generally and their topics are extensive. However, further studies should be improved in the aspects of selecting and applying the quality assessment criteria of randomized controlled trials.