| Title |
Clinical effects of a standardized Chinese herbal remedy, Qili Qiangxin, as an adjuvant treatment in heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12906-016-1174-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jin Sun, Kang Zhang, Wen-Jing Xiong, Guo-Yan Yang, Yun-Jiao Zhang, Cong-Cong Wang, Lily Lai, Mei Han, Jun Ren, George Lewith, Jian-Ping Liu |
| Abstract |
Qili Qiangxin capsule is a standardized Chinese herbal treatment that is commonly used in China for heart failure (HF) alongside conventional medical care. In 2014, Chinese guidelines for the treatment of chronic HF highlighted Qili Qiangxin capsules as a potentially effective medicine. However, there is at present no high quality review to evaluate the effects and safety of Qili Qiangxin for patients with HF. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis and followed methods described in our registered protocol [PROSPERO registration: CRD42013006106]. We searched 6 electronic databases to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) irrespective of blinding or placebo control of Qili Qiangxin used as an adjuvant treatment for HF. We included a total of 129 RCTs published between 2005 and 2015, involving 11,547 patients, aged 18 to 98 years. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference between Qili Qiangxin plus conventional treatment and conventional treatment alone for mortality (RR 0.53, 95 % CI 0.27 to 1.07). However, compared with conventional treatment alone, Qili Qiangxin plus conventional treatment demonstrated a significant reduction in major cardiovascular events (RR 0.46, 95 % CI 0.34 to 0.64) and a significant reduction in re-hospitalization rate due to HF (RR 0.49, 95 % CI 0.38 to 0.64). Qili Qiangxin also showed significant improvement in cardiac function measured by the New York Heart Association scale (RR 1.38, 95 % CI 1.29 to 1.48) and quality of life as measured by Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MD -8.48 scores, 95 % CI -9.56 to -7.39). There were no reports of serious adverse events relating to Qili Qiangxin administration. The majority of included trials were of poor methodological quality. When compared with conventional treatment alone, Qili Qiangxin combined with conventional treatment demonstrated a significant effect in reducing cardiovascular events and re-hospitalization rate, though not in mortality. It appeared to significantly improve quality of life in patients with HF and data from RCTs suggested that Qili Qiangxin is likely safe. This data was drawn from low quality trials and the results of this review must therefore be interpreted with caution. Further research is warranted, ideally involving large, prospective, rigorous trials, in order to confirm these findings. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 71 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 21% |
| Unknown | 22 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 7% |
| Psychology | 4 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Unknown | 22 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,337,788
of 22,883,326 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#2,983
of 3,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#308,237
of 354,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#81
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,883,326 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,637 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 354,304 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.