↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of combining oral Chinese herbal medicine and NB-UVB in treating psoriasis vulgaris: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Chinese Medicine, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Efficacy of combining oral Chinese herbal medicine and NB-UVB in treating psoriasis vulgaris: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Chinese Medicine, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13020-015-0060-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lihong Yang, Claire Shuiqing Zhang, Brian May, Jingjie Yu, Xinfeng Guo, Anthony Lin Zhang, Charlie Changli Xue, Chuanjian Lu

Abstract

The combination of a Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) bath and narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) improved the efficacy of NB-UVB treatment of psoriasis vulgaris, but bath therapy is inconvenient. Oral CHM plus NB-UVB has been tested in clinical practice. This study aims to evaluate whether adding oral CHM could be beneficial for NB-UVB therapy by a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nine English and Chinese databases were searched from their inception to April 2014. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the combination of orally administered CHM and NB-UVB with that of CHM placebo and NB-UVB or NB-UVB alone for treating psoriasis vulgaris and reporting Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) outcomes were included. A systematic review, meta-analysis, risk of bias assessment and the GRADE assessment were conducted in accordance with Cochrane Collaboration methodology to assess the evidence for efficacy outcome. Data were analyzed in RevMan5.2. Eighteen eligible RCTs (n = 1416) were included for systematic review, and 17 (n = 1342) of them were included in meta-analysis. Risk of bias in terms of blinding was high and so was in publication bias. Quality of evidence was low according the GRADE assessment. PASI-60 or above [risk ratio (RR) = 1.35, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.26-1.45, I(2) = 5 %, number needed to treat = 4.27] and PASI-90 or above (RR = 1.71, 95 % CI 1.45-2.01, I(2) = 0 %, number needed to treat = 5.92) were higher in the intervention group. The combination treatment conferred a 24 % benefit of PASI-60 or above (83 vs 59 %, RR = 1.35, 95 % CI 1.26-1.45, P < 0.01). The incidence of NB-UVB-induced adverse events was lower in the intervention group (95/464 vs 123/428, RR = 0.66, 95 % CI 0.46-0.96, P < 0.01). Mild gastrointestinal reactions (2.87 %) and liver function impairments (0.68 %) were reported in the intervention group. No serious adverse events were reported. The orally administrated CHM combined with NB-UVB in treating psoriasis vulgaris showed improved efficacy but quality of evidence was low.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 23%
Student > Master 5 19%
Researcher 5 19%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 42%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Chemistry 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 5 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 06 October 2015.
All research outputs
#4,791,525
of 9,727,557 outputs
Outputs from Chinese Medicine
#85
of 257 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,544
of 243,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chinese Medicine
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,727,557 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 257 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
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 243,436 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.