Chinese herbal medicine on treating obese women with polycystic ovary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

INTRODUCTION

Known as an endocrine disorder, Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) has posed an influence on 6% to 20% reproductive females worldwide. The commonly used pharmaceutical agents currently are Oral Contraceptives (OCs) and insulin-sensitizing agents. However, OCs is not appropriate for females pursuing pregnancy. Furthermore, some of insulin-sensitizing agents are found to be related to a high incidence of gastrointestinal adverse effects. In this regard, the effectiveness of Chinese herbal medicine in handling reproductive and metabolic defects simultaneously has been proved by extensive evidence. In this research, the effectiveness and safety of Chinese herbal medicine for obese females with PCOS were examined.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In the systematic review, we searched databases of AMED, Science Online, EMbase, WorldSciNet, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Nature, MEDLINE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the Wanfang Databse and China Biology Medicine Disc and the Chongqing VIP Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database, to find out the papers published in Chinese or English by September 25, 2020 in this field. In addition, potential reference lists, relevant conference proceedings, qualified studies, related system reviews and other resources were also considered. Two researchers were responsible for independently selecting the research papers, collecting data, and evaluating research quality. Moreover, the data were synthesized with the combination of a fixed-effects or random-effects model with the heterogeneity test. According to the objective and self-reported assessment, the primary outcomes will be Nausea and vomiting were primary outcomes. RevMan 5 software was used to analyze the collected data, the evidence level of which was evaluated by GRADE. The selection between the fixed-effects and random-effects models was determined by the heterogeneity level. In addition to the 95% Confidence Interval (CI), odds ratio (OR), or risk ratio (RR) was applied to the 2 categories. Moreover, 95% CI and standardized mean difference (SMD) or the weighted mean difference (WMD) were taken as the continuous variables. When existing meaningful heterogeneity could not be explained by any assessment such as subgroup analysis, we would not conduct a meta-analysis. During the subgroup analysis, each subgroup in specific cases should be comprehensively considered.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The evaluation of rights or personal information of patients was not involved in the systematic review. Hence, we need not gain approval from ethical institutions. This paper will be present at related conferences for communication and published in journals.

REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (OSF) Preregistration: osf.io/yp86h.