中药熏蒸辅助治疗糖尿病足疗效的Meta分析

Meta-Analysis of the Therapeutic Effect of Fumigation of Traditional Chinese Medicine in Adjuvant Treatment of Diabetic Foot

摘要: 目的：通过Meta分析探讨中药熏蒸辅助治疗糖尿病足的疗效。方法：计算机检索中国知网数据库(CNKI)、维普中文科技期刊数据库、万方数据库及Embase、Web of Science、Cochrane Central、PubMed数据库中关于中药熏蒸辅助治疗糖尿病足的临床随机对照试验(RCT)，检索时间为2000年1月1日至2020年10月，对查找到的文献资料进行阅读筛选，提取信息，数据分析，用Revman5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果：本研究共纳入21篇文献，共1495名病例，Meta分析表明：实验组(中药熏蒸组)治疗率明显高于对照组(基础治疗组)，合并OR (M-H, Fixed, 95%CI)为4.97 (3.58, 6.90) P < 0.00001，漏斗图基本左右对称，发表偏倚较小。结论：在有效率方面，中药熏蒸优于基础治疗，但是由于缺乏大样本、多中心、设计操作严谨的队列研究，为医师临床提供的循证证据较弱，仍需要未来更进一步的研究补充。

Abstract: Aim: To explore the effect of traditional Chinese medicine fumigation in adjuvant treatment of diabetic foot through Meta analysis. Methods: The clinical randomized controlled trial (RCT) of Chinese medicine fumigation adjuvant treatments for diabetic foot in the database of China National Knowledge Base (CNKI), VIP Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database, Wanfang Database and Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, PubMed Data is computer-searched and the retrieval time is from January 1, 2000 to October 2020. The literature materials found are read and screened, information is extracted, data analysis and Meta-analysis are performed with Revman5.3 software. Results: A total of 21 articles were included in this study, with a total of 1495 cases. Meta analysis showed that the treatment rate of the experimental group (traditional Chinese medicine fumigation group) was significantly higher than that of the control group (basic treatment group), combined with OR (MH, Fixed, 95% CI). It is 4.97 (3.58, 6.90), P < 0.00001, the funnel chart is basically symmetrical, and the publication bias is small. Conclusion: In terms of efficiency, traditional Chinese medicine fumigation is better than basic treatment. However, due to the lack of large-sample, multi-center, rigorously designed and operated cohort studies, the evidence-based evidence provided to physicians is weak, and further research is still needed in the future.