![]() There was no significant difference between CHM and placebo regarding the frequency of adverse events (relative risk, RR: 1.65, 95% CI: 0.67–4.10, I 2 = 0). The effect was also seen when CHM was combined with BZDs compared with placebo plus BZDs (MD: −1.88, 95% CI: −2.78 to −0.97, I 2 = 0%) or cognitive and behavioral therapy (MD: −3.80, 95% CI: −4.91 to −2.68, I 2 = 68%) alone. The main meta-analysis showed that CHM alone was more effective than placebo by reducing scores of Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (mean difference, MD: −3.06, 95% confidence interval, CI: −5.14 to −0.98, I 2 = 97%) and benzodiazepine drugs (BZDs) (MD: −1.94, 95% CI: −2.45 to −1.43, I 2 = 96%). Blinding of participants and personnel were used in 10 studies. Twenty-seven trials reported the methods of random sequence generation, and five of them used the allocation concealment. Seventy-nine trials (7886 participants) were finally included in the review, and 76 were included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.2.4. ![]() Risk of bias was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook 5.1. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating oral CHM alone or in combination with conventional therapies for primary insomnia were identified by searching English and Chinese publications and databases of clinical trial registration. This systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for people with insomnia. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |