↓ Skip to main content

Chinese herbal medicine for subfertile women with polycystic ovarian syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2010
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 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
Chinese herbal medicine for subfertile women with polycystic ovarian syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007535
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jing Zhang, Lingling Zhou, Liuling Tang, Taixiang Wu, Danforn CE Lim, Xu Liangzhi, Zhang, Jing, Li, Tingting, Zhou, Lingling, Tang, Liulin, Xu, Liangzhi, Wu, Taixiang, Lim, Danforn Ce

Abstract

Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is one of the most common reproductive endocrinology abnormalities, affecting 5% to 10% of women of reproductive age. Western medicines, such as oral contraceptives and insulin sensitizers, have been widely used to improve the symptoms and signs for PCOS. Recently, many studies have been published considering Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) as an alternative treatment for women with PCOS. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Chinese medicinal herbs for subfertile women with PCOS. We searched the following databases (from inception to March 2010): Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register (MDSG), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), PsycINFO, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP, Wanfang. In addition, all reference lists of included trials were searched and experts in the field were contacted to locate trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) considering the use of CHM for the treatment of subfertile women with PCOS. Two review authors independently screened appropriate trials for inclusion, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. We contacted primary authors for additional information. Meta-analysis was conducted. Odds ratio (OR) was used for reporting dichotomous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Four RCTs involving 344 participants were included. The methodological risk of bias of included studies was poor. Different interventions were used in these four RCTs.There was evidence of statistically significant difference seen improving pregnancy rate (per woman) between CHM plus clomiphene and clomiphene (OR 2.97, 95%CI 1.71 to 5.17). However, there was no statistically significant difference seen in the other comparison groups for improving pregnancy rate (per woman).There was no evidence of statistically significant difference in improving ovulation rate (per woman) between CHM and clomiphene (OR 1.42, 95%CI 0.19 to 10.49), between CHM plus laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) and LOD (OR 2.43, 95%CI 0.39 to 15.08).There were not statistically significant difference between CHM plus follicle aspiration, ovulation induction and follicle aspiration plus ovulation induction for adverse events including LUFS, OHSS and multiple pregnancy.Live birth rate was not reported by any studies. There is limited evidence that the addition of CHM to clomiphene is associated with improved clinical pregnancy outcomes and no other evidence of any other effect. The methodology of RCTs was not adequately reported by primary studies.

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 %
Spain 1 4%
Unknown 25 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 1 4%
Researcher 1 4%
Unknown 24 92%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Unknown 24 92%