预览加载中,请您耐心等待几秒...
1/4
2/4
3/4
4/4

在线预览结束,喜欢就下载吧,查找使用更方便

如果您无法下载资料,请参考说明:

1、部分资料下载需要金币,请确保您的账户上有足够的金币

2、已购买过的文档,再次下载不重复扣费

3、资料包下载后请先用软件解压,在使用对应软件打开

第13卷第2期辽宁中医药大学学报Vol.13No.2 2011年2月JOURNALOFLIAONINGUNIVERSITYOFTCMFeb.,2011 复方大承气汤联合保守常规疗法治疗粘连性肠梗阻的系统评价 李晓娇,呙金海,杨拯,张晓 (成都医学院,四川成都610081) 摘要:目的:评价中药复方大承气汤联合西医保守常规疗法治疗粘连性肠梗阻的临床疗效。方法:全面搜集 以复方大承气汤联合西医保守常规疗法治疗粘连性肠梗阻相关的随机对照或半随机对照试验文献,对入选文献进 行Jadad评分,质量评价,运用ReviewManager4.2.8统计相关数据作异质性检验、Mete分析、漏斗图分析和敏感性分 析得出系统评价。结果:16篇文献符合纳入标准,复方大承气汤实验组与单纯保守常规疗法对照组有组间均衡性。 Meta分析显示合并总有效率RR=1.30,其95%可信区间为1.24~1.36,菱形位于垂线右侧(z=11.15,P<0.00001),差 异有统计学意义。结论:从统计结果分析,可认为联合复方大承气汤治疗粘连性肠梗阻疗效优于(西医)保守常规 疗法,但所纳入的文献质量普遍偏低且样本量偏小,势必影响结果的论证强度,故尚需更多高质量的随机对照试验, 提供高质量的证据。 关键词:复方大承气汤;粘连性肠梗阻;系统评价 中图分类号:R574.2文献标识码:A文章编号:1673-842X(2011)02-0113-04 ASystemEvaluationonPotentPurgativeDecoctionwithAdditions CombinationConventionalTherapyforAdhesiveIleus LIXiao-jiao,GUOJin-hai,YANGZheng,ZHANGXiao (ChengduMedicalCollege,Chengdu610081,Sichuan,China) Abstract:Objective:ToevaluatetheclinicaleffectsofChinesemedicinePotentPurgativeDecoction withAdditionscombinationconventionaltherapyintreatmentofadhesiveileus.Methods:Basedonthe databasesgettingfrommedicalliteraturesrelatingtoPotentPurgativeDecoctionwithAdditionsintreatment ofadhesiveileus,whichconductedbyrandomizedcontrolledtrials(RCT)orsemi-randomizedcontrolled trials.ThenmadeaqualityevaluationbyJadadscoringmethod,andtookstatisticsofthecorrelateddatawith themethodsofheterogeneitytest,Metaanalysis,filler-graphanalysisandsensitivityanalysisbyReview Manager4.2.8.Results:16articleswereincludedintothesystemevaluation.Thebaselinecharacteristicsof theexperimentgroupweresimilartothecontrolgroup.Thetotaleffectiveratecomparisonrelativerisk(RR) tomergeequaled1.30,95%confidenceinterval(CI)was(1.24~1.36).Rhombuslocatedattherightof theperpendicular(z=11.15,P<0.00001).TheresultshaveStatisticallysignificantdifference.Conclusion: OursystemicevaluationshowstheclinicaleffectsofcombinationPotentPurgativeDecoctionwithAdditions isbetterthanthatofconservativeroutinetreatmentintreatmentofadhesiveileus.Howeverthequalityof literaturesneedstobeimprovedwhichwillinfluencetheargumentationintensi