Search

Pattern differentiation is a critical component for traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) diagnosis and treatment. However, the issue of whether pattern differentiation is appropriately applied in TCM interventional trials, including Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) interventions and non-herbal TCM interventions, is unclear. The aim of this study was to i) systematically review the current status of pattern differentiation used in WHO-registered clinical trials for different types of TCM interventions; and ii) provide suggestions for improving the use of pattern differentiation in future clinical trial design. The World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) database was searched for all TCM interventional trials registered up to 31 December 2017. In this systematic review trials with a TCM pattern differentiation in their design were included. Descriptive statistics were collated to demonstrate the characteristics of pattern differentiation applied for different TCM interventional trials. Among 2955 TCM interventional trials registered during 1999–2017, 376 (12.7%) trials included pattern differentiation. Of 376 trials, the use of pattern differentiation was identified in; –the title (30.6%), objective (50.5%), participants inclusion (100%), outcomes (43.6%) and study background (12.5%). Further, 85.4% reported the specific name of the TCM intervention, 10.6% provided the intervention's targeted pattern, 83.8% reported the specific name of the TCM pattern, 7.2% presented diagnostic criteria for the pattern studied, and 19.1% adopted a pattern-related outcome as primary outcome for evaluation. The reporting and application of pattern differentiation in TCM trials were inadequate and confusing, which was mainly due to lack of clarity regarding study design, objectives, diagnostic criteria and outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to update previous reviews and examine recent evidence from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of the use of moxibustion for osteoarthritis (OA). Twelve databases were searched from inception through to September 2016 with no language limits applied. Data extraction and risk-of-bias assessments were performed by two independent reviewers. A total of 19 RCTs met all inclusion criteria and were evaluated. Three RCTs compared the effects of moxibustion with those of sham moxibustion in patients with knee OA (KOA) and found favourable effects of moxibustion on pain reduction (n=305; SMD, -0.46; 95% CI: -0.86 to -0.06, P=0.02, I2=65%), including at follow-up (n=305; SMD, -0.36; 95% CI: -0.70 to -0.01, P=0.04, I2=54%). Eleven RCTs compared the effects of moxibustion with those of conventional oral drug therapies. Eight RCTs reported a total symptom score and the meta-analysis showed superior effects of moxibustion compared with drug therapies for this measure (n=691; SMD, -0.24; 95% CI: -0.78 to 0.29; P=0.37, I2=91%) and response rate (n=758 knees; RR, 1.10; 95% CI: 1.05-1.16, P <0.0001, I2=0%). Three RCTs found superior or equivalent effects of moxibustion on symptom score compared with intra-articular injection or topical drug therapy. The existing trial evidence is sufficiently convincing to suggest that moxibustion, compared with sham moxibustion and oral drugs, is effective for pain reduction and symptom management in KOA. The level of evidence is moderate, given the high risk of bias and small sample size. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]