Objective To review the systemat ic reviews/meta-analyses involving Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM ) therapy for menopausal syndrome, so as to offer clinical evidence about the safety and efficacy of TCM. Methods We searched The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2006), MEDLINE (1991 to 2006), Ovid (1990 to 2006), CBM(1990 to 2006), CNKI(1989 to 2006) and VIP(1979 to 2006). The search terms of "menopause OR climacteric" and "traditional Chinese medicine OR herb OR plant" and "systematic review OR evidence-based medicine OR Meta-analysis OR Meta-analysis" were used to identify systematic reviews or meta-analyses on TCM for menopause syndrome. Results A total of 6 systematic reviews or meta-analyses were identified. Two of these were in Chinese databases and four were in the foreign language databases. The 6 articles were reviewed and summarized. Conclusion TCM has a effect in the treatment of menopausal syndrome with a good safety profile. However, due to the generally low quality of included studies, the evidence available is not b enough to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TCM for menopausal syndrome.More rigorously designed and strictly executed trials are needed.
ObjectiveTo analyze the status quo of outcome indicators in the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of premature ovarian failure (POF)/primary ovarian insufficiency (POI) published at home and abroad, and provide a sufficient basis for the selection of outcome indicators in related studies in the future.MethodsChina National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chongqing VIP Data, Wanfang Data, SinoMed, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched for RCT articles of POF/POI published between the establishment of the databases and June 2021. Two researchers independently screened and extracted the literature, and finally summarized the outcome indicators of the included studies.ResultsA total of 186 articles meeting the inclusion criteria were selected, including 180 articles in Chinese and 6 articles in English. The choice of outcome indicators was diverse. Of the 186 articles, 2 Chinese articles and 1 English article used primary and secondary outcome indicators; 19 Chinese articles and 4 English articles used independent indicators, 4 Chinese articles used composite indicators, and 157 Chinese articles and 2 English articles used both independent indicators and composite indicators.ConclusionsThe selection and use of outcome indicators in clinical RCTs of POF/POI are not standardized, and there are problems such as neglect of primary and secondary outcome indicators, and lack of standards for the selection of clinical research outcome indicators. As a result, the credibility of the curative effect is reduced, and the results of similar studies cannot be combined and compared.