Oral Chinese proprietary medicine for angina pectoris: an overview of systematic reviews/meta-analyses

Abstract

Background: Oral Chinese proprietary medicine (CPM) is commonly used to treat angina pectoris, and many relevant systematic reviews/meta-analyses are available. However, these reviews have not been systematically summarized and evaluated. We conducted an overview of these reviews, and explored their methodological and reporting quality to inform both practice and further research.

Methods: We included systematic reviews/meta-analyses on oral CPM in treating angina until March 2013 by searching PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and four Chinese databases. We extracted data according to a pre-designed form, and assessed the methodological and reporting characteristics of the reviews in terms of AMSTAR and PRISMA respectively. Most of the data analyses were descriptive.

Results: 36 systematic reviews/meta-analyses involving over 82,105 participants with angina reviewing 13 kinds of oral CPM were included. The main outcomes assessed in the reviews were surrogate outcomes (34/36, 94.4%), adverse events (31/36, 86.1%), and symptoms (30/36, 83.3%). Six reviews (6/36, 16.7%) drew definitely positive conclusions, while the others suggested potential benefits in the symptoms, electrocardiogram, and adverse events. The overall methodological and reporting quality of the reviews was limited, with many serious flaws such as the lack of review protocol and incomprehensive literature searches.

Conclusions: Though many systematic reviews/meta-analyses on oral CPM for angina suggested potential benefits or definitely positive effects, stakeholders should interpret the findings of these reviews with caution, considering the overall limited methodological and reporting quality. We recommend further studies should be appropriately conducted and systematic reviews reported according to PRISMA standard.

Keywords: Angina pectoris; Meta-analyses; Oral medicine; Overview; Proprietary medicine; Systematic reviews.