AI Article Synopsis
- - Traditional Chinese Medicine, specifically rhubarb root and rhizome (RRR)-based prescriptions, has been a long-standing treatment for stroke, but this study aims to evaluate its clinical effectiveness and safety for acute ischemic stroke compared to Western conventional medicine (WCM).
- - The research involved a systematic review of 12 randomized controlled trials with 968 participants, showing that RRR-based treatments had statistically significant positive effects on various clinical outcome measures compared to WCM, although all trials had a high risk of bias.
- - Despite promising results, the authors caution against endorsing RRR prescriptions for general use in stroke treatment due to methodological weaknesses in the studies, highlighting a need for larger and better-designed trials to establish stronger conclusions.
Article Abstract
Background: Traditional Chinese Medicine has been using in stroke victims for thousands of years, and the rhubarb root and rhizome (RRR)-based Chinese herbal prescription is one of the principle treatments for stroke. The objective of this study is to systematically assess the clinical efficacy and safety of RRR-based prescriptions for acute ischemic stroke.
Methods: A systematic literature search in six databases was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which compared RRR-based prescriptions with western conventional medicine (WCM) for acute ischemic stroke. The methodological quality of RCTs was assessed independently based on the 12 criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group.
Results: A total of 968 participants were included in 12 eligible studies. All trials were deemed to have high a risk of bias. RRR-based prescriptions have a significant effect on the improvement of the clinical efficacy rate (n=10), Barthel Index scores (n=5), National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores (n=2), Glasgow Coma Scale scores (n=1), and neurological deficit scores (n=5) when compared with WCM controls (p<0.05 or p<0.01). Six trials reported that there were no adverse events, while no mention of adverse effect monitoring was reported in the other 6 studies.
Conclusions: Despite the apparently positive findings, it is premature to recommend the routine use of RRR-based prescriptions for acute ischemic stroke because methodological flaws undermine the strength of our findings. However, this work identifies an area, which is worthy of improvement and development for further research. Larger sample-sizes and rigorously designed RCTs are required in the future.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2014.10.002 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!