本文選題：中藥注射劑　切入點(diǎn)：鼻咽癌　出處：《實(shí)用預(yù)防醫(yī)學(xué)》2016年06期 　論文類型：期刊論文

【摘要】：目的采用網(wǎng)狀meta分析,以單純放療為對(duì)照干預(yù)措施比較中藥注射劑聯(lián)合放療治療鼻咽癌的療效及安全性。方法檢索Cochrane Library、Pub Med、EMbase、CBM、CNKI、維普數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù),收集所有中藥注射液聯(lián)合放療治療鼻咽癌的隨機(jī)對(duì)照試驗(yàn)(RCTs)和半隨機(jī)對(duì)照試驗(yàn)(CCT),按預(yù)先制定的納入與排除標(biāo)準(zhǔn)篩選和納入,并對(duì)納入文獻(xiàn)質(zhì)量進(jìn)行評(píng)價(jià),數(shù)據(jù)采用Microsoft Excel軟件加載Net Meta XL宏命令調(diào)用Win BUGS1.4.3軟件進(jìn)行分析。結(jié)果共納入9種中藥注射劑,23個(gè)研究,網(wǎng)狀Meta分析結(jié)果顯示,與單純放療相比,完全有效率方面OR康萊特注射劑=3.42,95%CI(1.60,7.11);OR康艾注射劑=9.18,95%CI(1.40,100.50),優(yōu)于對(duì)照組,其余差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。Ⅱ~Ⅳ級(jí)口腔黏膜炎方面,OR參芪扶正注射劑=0.12,95%CI(0.02,0.63);OR華蟾素注射劑=0.20,95%CI(0.04,0.93);OR康艾注射劑=0.25,95%CI(0.06,0.98);OR艾迪注射劑=0.31,95%CI(0.14,0.72);OR康萊特注射劑=0.35,95%CI(0.12,0.97);OR復(fù)方苦參注射劑=0.50,95%CI(0.26,0.93),優(yōu)于對(duì)照組,其余差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。結(jié)論在完全有效率方面,康萊特注射劑效果最好的可能性最大,在Ⅱ~Ⅳ口腔黏膜炎發(fā)生率方面,參芪扶正注射劑效果最好的可能性最大,該結(jié)論有待更多高質(zhì)量、大樣本、長(zhǎng)期隨訪的RCTs進(jìn)一步驗(yàn)證。
[Abstract]:Objective to compare the efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine injection combined with radiotherapy in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma by reticular meta analysis. Methods the database of Cochrane Library Pub Medbase was searched. RCTs and CCTX were collected from all Chinese traditional medicine injection combined with radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (RCTs) and semi-randomized controlled trial (CRT). The inclusion was screened and included according to the pre-established criteria of inclusion and exclusion, and the quality of the literature was evaluated. The data were analyzed by loading Net Meta XL macro command with Microsoft Excel software and calling Win BUGS1.4.3 software. The results included 9 kinds of traditional Chinese medicine injections, 23 studies, and the results of network Meta analysis showed that compared with radiotherapy alone, the data were compared with radiotherapy alone. In terms of total effective rate, OR Kanglaite injection was 3.42 ~ 95 CIQ 1.60 ~ 7.11 and OR Kangai injection was 1.40 ~ 100.50%, which was better than that in control group. There was no statistical difference between the other two groups. In grade 鈪，

本文編號(hào)：1630747