↓ Skip to main content

Chinese herbal medicines for unexplained recurrent miscarriage.

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Chinese herbal medicines for unexplained recurrent miscarriage.
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010568.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Li, Lu, Dou, Lixia, Leung, Ping Chung, Chung, Tony Kwok Hung, Wang, Chi Chiu

Abstract

Recurrent miscarriage affects 1% to 3% of women of reproductive age and mostly occurs before the 10th week of gestation (and around the same gestational week in subsequent miscarriages). Although most pregnant women may not recognise a miscarriage until uterine bleeding and cramping occur, a repeat miscarriage after one or more pregnancy loss and the chance of having a successful pregnancy varies. To date, there is no universally accepted treatment for unexplained recurrent miscarriage. Chinese herbal medicines have been widely used in Asian societies for millennia and have become a popular alternative to Western medicines in recent years. Many clinical studies have reported that Chinese herbal medicines can improve pregnancy outcomes for pregnant women who had previously suffered recurrent miscarriage. This systematic review evaluated the efficacy of Chinese herbal medicines for recurrent miscarriage. To assess the effectiveness and safety of Chinese herbal medicines for the treatment of unexplained recurrent miscarriage. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (01 June 2015), Embase (1980 to 01 June 2015); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 01 June 2015); Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) (1978 to 01 June 2015); China Journal Net (CJN) (1915 to 01 June 2015); China Journals Full-text Database (1915 to 01 June 2015); and WanFang Database (Chinese Ministry of Science & Technology) (1980 to 01 June 2015). We also searched reference lists of relevant trials and reviews. We identified and contacted organisations, individual experts working in the field, and medicinal herb manufacturers. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials, including cluster-randomised trials, with or without full text, comparing Chinese herbal medicines (alone or combined with other intervention or other pharmaceuticals) with placebo, no treatment, other intervention (including bed rest and psychological support), or other pharmaceuticals as treatments for unexplained recurrent miscarriage. Cross-over studies were not eligible for inclusion in this review. Two review authors independently assessed all the studies for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias and extracted the data. Data were checked for accuracy. We included nine randomised clinical trials (involving 861 women). The trials compared Chinese herbal medicines (various formulations) either alone (one trial), or in combination with other pharmaceuticals (seven trials) versus other pharmaceuticals alone. One study compared Chinese herbal medicines and other pharmaceuticals versus psychotherapy. We did not identify any trials comparing Chinese herbal medicines with placebo or no treatment, including bed rest.Various Chinese herbal medicines were used in the different trials (and some of the classical the formulations were modified in the trials). The Western pharmaceutical medicines included tocolytic drugs such as salbutamol and magnesium sulphate; hormonal supplementation with human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG), progesterone or dydrogesterone; and supportive supplements such as vitamin E, vitamin K and folic acid.Overall, the methodological quality of the included studies was poor with unclear risk of bias for nearly all the 'Risk of bias' domains assessed.Chinese herbal medicines alone versus other pharmaceuticals alone - the live birth rate was no different between the two groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.65; one trial, 80 women). No data were available for the outcome of pregnancy rate (continuation of pregnancy after 20 weeks of gestation).In contrast, the continuing pregnancy rate (RR 1.27 95% CI 1.10 to 1.48, two trials, 189 women) and live birth rate (average RR 1.55; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.10; six trials, 601 women, Tau² = 0.10; I² = 73%) were higher among the group of women who received a combination of Chinese herbal medicines and other pharmaceuticals when compared with women who received other pharmaceuticals alone.For Chinese herbal medicines and psychotherapy versus psychotherapy alone (one study) - there was a higher live birth rate (RR 1.32; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.64; one trial, 90 women) in the group of women who received a combination of Chinese herbal medicines and psychotherapy compared to those women who received psychotherapy alone. No data were available on the continuing pregnancy rate for this comparison.Other primary outcomes (maternal adverse effect and toxicity rate and the perinatal adverse effect and toxicity rate) were not reported in most of the included studies. Two trials (341 women) reported that no maternal adverse effects were found (one trial compared (combined) medicines with other pharmaceuticals, and one trial compared combined Chinese herbal medicine alone versus other pharmaceuticals). One trial (Chinese herbal medicine alone versus other pharmaceuticals alone) reported that there were no abnormal fetuses (ultrasound) or after delivery.There were no data reported for any of this review's secondary outcomes. We found limited evidence (from nine studies with small sample sizes and unclear risk of bias) to assess the effectiveness of Chinese herbal medicines for treating unexplained recurrent miscarriage; no data were available to assess the safety of the intervention for the mother or her baby. There were no data relating to any of this review's secondary outcomes. From the limited data we found, a combination of Chinese herbal medicines and other pharmaceuticals (mainly Western medicines) may be more effective than Western medicines alone in terms of the rate of continuing pregnancy and the rate of live births. However, the methodological quality of the included studies was generally poor.A comparison of Chinese herbal medicines alone versus placebo or no treatment (including bed rest) was not possible as no relevant trials were identified.More high-quality studies are needed to further evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Chinese herbal medicines for unexplained recurrent miscarriage. In addition to assessing the effect of Chinese herbal medicines on pregnancy rate and the rate of live births, future studies should also consider safety issues (adverse effects and toxicity for the mother and her baby) as well as the secondary outcomes listed in this review. This review would provide more valuable information if the included studies could overcome the problems in their designs, such as lacking of qualified placebo-controlled trials, applying adequate randomisation methods and avoiding potential bias.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 40%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 20%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Researcher 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 60%
Social Sciences 3 20%
Psychology 2 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 19 May 2017.
All research outputs
#634,746
of 8,636,286 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,532
of 8,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,460
of 325,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#76
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,636,286 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,700 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 325,251 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 210 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.