Cardiovasc Ther. 2021 Mar 06;2021:8816590. doi: 10.1155/2021/8816590. eCollection 2021.
A Critical Overview of Systematic Reviews of Shenfu Injection for Heart Failure.
Cardiovascular therapeutics
Jinke Huang, Yanlu Wang, Suihe Huang, Xiaohui Qin, Fang Yan, Min Shen, Yong Huang
Affiliations
Affiliations
- The Second Clinical Medical College of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province 510120, China.
- The First Clinical Medical College of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, Shandong Province 255014, China.
- Research Base of the Clinical Application of Traditional Chinese Medicine Classics, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province 510120, China.
- Department of Neurology, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province 510120, China.
- School of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province 510515, China.
PMID: 33777184
PMCID: PMC7960068 DOI: 10.1155/2021/8816590
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Shenfu Injection (SFI) was widely used in the treatment of heart failure (HF) in China. A plethora of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) has been conducted in this research area, although with scattered results. The purpose of this overview was to conduct a comprehensive review to summarize and critically evaluate the existing evidence.
METHODS: Digital databases were searched for SRs/MAs up to January 28, 2021. Two authors independently screened the reviews and assessed the methodological quality of included SRs/MAs using Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2). Quality of evidence for outcomes evaluated within the reviews was appraised with the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE).
RESULTS: Thirteen SRs/MAs met the inclusion criteria. Based on AMSTAR-2, the quality of all SRs/MAs was critically low, because all of them have more than one critical domains that were unmet. Based on GRADE, the evidence quality of 24 outcome measures was low or very low, 27 outcome measures was moderate, and none outcome measure was high. Descriptive analysis showed that SFI was an effective and safe method for HF.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of SFI for the treatment of HF may be clinically effective and safe. However, this conclusion must be interpreted cautiously due to the generally low methodological quality and low evidence quality of the included SRs/MAs. More rigorously designed SRs/MAs and RCTs with high methodological quality are necessary for further proof.
Copyright © 2021 Jinke Huang et al.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
References
- J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):401-6 - PubMed
- Circulation. 2012 Jan 3;125(1):e2-e220 - PubMed
- J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Nov;79:150-158.e1 - PubMed
- Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 09;1:7 - PubMed
- BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008 - PubMed
- Circulation. 2013 Oct 15;128(16):e240-327 - PubMed
- Front Pharmacol. 2020 Feb 26;11:121 - PubMed
- Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2012;2012:713149 - PubMed
- BMJ. 2004 Jun 19;328(7454):1490 - PubMed
- Int J Surg. 2012;10(1):28-55 - PubMed
- Eur Heart J. 2006 Jan;27(1):65-75 - PubMed
Substances
MeSH terms
Publication Types
