...
首页> 外文期刊>European respiratory review >A systematic review and meta-analysis of complementary and alternative medicine in asthma
【24h】

A systematic review and meta-analysis of complementary and alternative medicine in asthma

机译:哮喘替代和替代药物的系统评价和荟萃分析

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Asthma is a chronic; inflammatory lung disease affecting around 235 million people worldwide. Conventional medications in asthma are not curative and patients have significant concerns regarding their side-effects. Consequently; many asthma patients turn to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for a more holistic approach to care. We systematically reviewed the available evidence on the effectiveness of CAM in the management of asthma in adults.We searched the MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; AMED and Cochrane databases for randomised controlled trials published in English between 1990 and 2016 investigating the effectiveness of oral or topical CAM in asthmatic adults. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.In all; 23 eligible trials were identified covering 19 different CAMs. Overall; there was limited evidence on the effectiveness of CAM in adult asthma as most CAMs were only assessed in a single trial. CAMs with multiple trials provided null or inconsistent results. Many of the trials were rated as having high risk of bias.The existing evidence is insufficient to recommend any of the oral and topical CAMs in the management of asthma in adults.
机译:哮喘是慢性的;炎症性肺病影响全球约2.35亿人。哮喘中的常规药物不能治愈,患者对其副作用有重大担忧。所以;许多哮喘患者转而使用补充和替代药物(CAM)以获得更全面的护理方法。我们系统地回顾了有关CAM在成人哮喘管理中的有效性的现有证据。 EMBASE; CINAHL; AMED和Cochrane数据库于1990年至2016年之间以英语发布了随机对照试验,以研究口服或局部CAM在哮喘成人中的有效性。研究的质量使用Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具进行评估。确定了23个合格试验,涵盖19个不同的CAM。总体;由于大多数CAM仅在一项试验中评估,因此关于CAM在成人哮喘中的有效性的证据有限。多次尝试的CAM提供的结果无效或不一致。许多试验被认为具有较高的偏倚风险。现有证据不足以推荐任何口服和局部CAMs治疗成人哮喘。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号