Evidence Hub

The Traditional Chinese Medicine and Relevant Treatment for the Efficacy and Safety of Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Shi ZF, Song TB, Xie J, Yan YQ, Du YP

Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2017

1,618 participants · 14 citations

Abstract

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) has become a common skin disease that requires systematic and comprehensive treatment to achieve adequate clinical control. Traditional Chinese medicines and related treatments have shown clinical effects for AD in many studies. But the systematic reviews and meta-analyses for them are lacking.

Objective: The systematic review and meta-analysis based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicines and related treatments for AD treatment.

Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched based on standardized searching rules in eight medical databases from the inception up to December 2016 and a total of 24 articles with 1,618 patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis.

Results: The results revealed that traditional Chinese medicines and related treatments did not show statistical differences in clinical effectiveness, SCORAD amelioration, and SSRI amelioration for AD treatment compared with control group. However, EASI amelioration of traditional Chinese medicines and related treatments for AD was superior to control group.

Conclusion: We need to make conclusion cautiously for the efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine and related treatment on AD therapy. More standard, multicenter, double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of traditional Chinese medicine and related treatment for AD…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,618 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free