Integrative cancer therapies · 2023
Topical Traditional Chinese Medicines for Cancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Liu Yihong, May Brian H, Hyde Anna J, He Yihan, Guo Xinfeng, Zhang Anthony Lin, Lu Chuanjian, Xue Charlie Changli, Zhang Haibo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Safe and effective management of cancer-related pain is a worldwide challenge. In the search for treatment options, natural products used in Chinese herbal medicines (CHMs) have received attention in clinical studies for their effects on cancer-related pain. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the clinical evidence for topically applied CHMs as adjunctive treatments for cancer pain management.
METHODS: Nine biomedical databases and 4 clinical trial registries were searched for randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) that reported measures of pain and/or quality of life. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. Meta-analysis employed mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (random effects).
RESULTS: Twenty (20) RCTs (1636 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were grouped based on the comparisons and outcome measures. For pain intensity, there was a greater reduction in the topical CHM group versus placebo (MD -0.72 [-1.04, -0.40]), no difference when compared to tramadol (MD -0.15 [-0.38, 0.08]), and a greater reduction when topical CHMs were combined with conventional analgesic medications (MD -0.67 [-0.93, -0.40]). Analgesic onset time was reduced in the CHM group compared to tramadol (MD -26.02 [-27.57, -24.47] minutes), and for CHMs combined with conventional medications (MD -19.17 [-21.83, -16.52] minutes). When CHMs were combined with analgesic medications, improvements were found for duration of analgesia (MD 1.65 [0.78, 2.51] hours), analgesic maintenance dose (MD -31.72 [-50.43, -13.01] milligrams/day), and quality of life.
CONCLUSION: Addition of topical CHMs to conventional analgesic medications was associated with improved outcomes for pain intensity, some other pain-related outcomes, and measures of quality of life. Limitations included methodological issues in some studies and considerable heterogeneity in some pooled results.
METHODS: Nine biomedical databases and 4 clinical trial registries were searched for randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) that reported measures of pain and/or quality of life. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. Meta-analysis employed mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (random effects).
RESULTS: Twenty (20) RCTs (1636 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were grouped based on the comparisons and outcome measures. For pain intensity, there was a greater reduction in the topical CHM group versus placebo (MD -0.72 [-1.04, -0.40]), no difference when compared to tramadol (MD -0.15 [-0.38, 0.08]), and a greater reduction when topical CHMs were combined with conventional analgesic medications (MD -0.67 [-0.93, -0.40]). Analgesic onset time was reduced in the CHM group compared to tramadol (MD -26.02 [-27.57, -24.47] minutes), and for CHMs combined with conventional medications (MD -19.17 [-21.83, -16.52] minutes). When CHMs were combined with analgesic medications, improvements were found for duration of analgesia (MD 1.65 [0.78, 2.51] hours), analgesic maintenance dose (MD -31.72 [-50.43, -13.01] milligrams/day), and quality of life.
CONCLUSION: Addition of topical CHMs to conventional analgesic medications was associated with improved outcomes for pain intensity, some other pain-related outcomes, and measures of quality of life. Limitations included methodological issues in some studies and considerable heterogeneity in some pooled results.