|
The Cochrane Collaboration
Cochrane Reviews |
| Explore | New + Updated | Other languages |
|
 |
Chinese herbs combined with Western medicine for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)Liu X, Zhang M, He L, Li Y, Kang Y
Bookmark this:
     more ...
SummaryChinese herbs combined with Western medicine for treating severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is an acute respiratory disease which first appeared in 2002. Integrated Chinese and Western medicines played an important role in the treatment of SARS and this review assessed the effectiveness and safety of this integrated treament approach. Among 5327 confirmed cases, 3104 patients received traditional Chinese medicine. We identified 12 randomized controlled trials and one quasi-randomized controlled trial invoving 654 SARS patients. Clinical evidence shows that integrated Western and Chinese medicine does not decrease the mortality rate. It is possible that different Chinese herbs combined with Western medicines may improve symptoms, quality of life, lung infiltrate absorption, and decrease corticosteroid dosage. No severe adverse events were found. The evidence is weak because of the poor quality of the included trials.
This is a Cochrane review abstract and plain language summary, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration, currently published in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009 Issue 4, Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.. The full text of the review is available in The Cochrane Library (ISSN 1464-780X).
This version first published online:
January 25. 2006 AbstractBackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is an acute respiratory disease, which first appeared in Foshan City, China on 22 December 2002. It was reported by some that Chinese herbs played an important role in the treatment of SARS patients. ObjectivesTo evaluate the possible effectiveness and safety of Chinese herbs combined with Western medicines versus Western medicines alone for SARS patients. Search strategyWe searched the following electronic databases for reports of randomised controlled trials: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, issue 4) which contains the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialized Regsiter; MEDLINE (1966 to March 2008); EMBASE (1990 to March 2008); and Chinese Biomedical Literature (issue 1, 2008). Selection criteriaRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs) of Chinese herbs combined with Western medicines versus Western medicines alone for patients diagnosed with SARS were included. Data collection and analysisTwo review authors (XL, MZ) independently extracted trial data. We extracted dichotomous and continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For dichotomous data, risk ratio (RR) was used. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD). Overall results were calculated based on the random-effects model if heterogeneity existed between studies. If no heterogeneity was detected between the studies, we used the fixed-effect model. We used the Z score and the chi square statistic with significance being set at P < 0.05 tested heterogeneity. Main resultsWe finally included twelve RCTs and one quasi-RCT. A total of 654 SARS patients and 12 Chinese herbs were identified. We did not find Chinese herbs combined with Western medicines decreased morbidity versus Western medicines alone. Two herbs may improve symptoms. Five herbs may improve lung infiltrate absorption. Four herbs may decrease the dosage of corticosteroids. Three herbs may improve the quality of life of SARS patients. One herb may shorten the length of stay in hospital. Only two trials reported adverse events. Authors' conclusionsChinese herbs combined with Western medicines made no difference in decreasing morbidity versus Western medicines alone. It is possible that Chinese herbs combined with Western medicines may improve symptoms, quality of life, and lung infiltrate absorption and decrease the corticosteroid dosage for SARS patients. The evidence is weak because of the poor quality of the included trials. Long-term follow up of these included trials is needed. |