These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine for chronic prostatitis associated with damp-heat and blood-stasis syndromes: a meta-analysis and literature review.
    Author: Wang Z, Yuan L, Wang Y, Yang B, Dong X, Gao Z.
    Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence; 2016; 10():1889-1902. PubMed ID: 27698555.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The aim of this meta-analysis and systematic review is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for chronic prostatitis (CP) associated with damp-heat and blood-stasis syndromes. METHODS: An electronic search of 13 databases up to May 2016 was screened to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the safety and efficacy of CHM for the treatment of CP associated with damp-heat and blood-stasis syndromes. Studies reporting on effective rates, adverse events, National Institutes of Health chronic prostatitis symptom index (NIH-CPSI) scores, and symptom index of Chinese medicine for chronic prostatitis (SI-CM) scores as outcomes were included in the analysis. Data were analyzed by fixed- or random-effect models using the Review Manager software. RESULTS: Thirteen articles with the modified Jadad score ≥4 were identified. It was found that CHM was superior to placebo in increasing the efficacy (odds ratio: 6.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.78-9.48, P<0.00001) and reducing the SI-CM scores (standardized mean difference: -1.08, 95% CI: -1.35 to -0.81, P<0.00001). Oral CHMs were significantly more effective than placebo at reducing NIH-CPSI scores, with a mean difference of -1.39 (95% CI: -1.87 to -0.92, P<0.00001). Nevertheless, no significant differences were found between Prostant and placebo (standardized mean difference: -0.23, 95% CI: -0.46 to 0.01, P=0.06). The frequency of adverse events associated with oral CHM was similar to that associated with placebo (risk ratio: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.72-2.55, P=0.34) and less than that associated with Prostant (risk ratio: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.14-2.34, P=0.008). CONCLUSION: Our novel analysis demonstrates that CHM ranks highest in terms of improvement of CP associated with damp-heat and blood-stasis syndromes. While Prostant showed some efficacy in this disorder, it was associated with a smaller reduction in NIH-CPSI scores. In conclusion, CHM monotherapy is safe and effective for the treatment of CP associated with damp-heat and blood-stasis syndromes.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]