【摘要】：目的探討丹紅注射液治療對(duì)高血壓腎損害患者腎功能的影響。方法檢索并篩選丹紅注射液治療高血壓腎損害的隨機(jī)對(duì)照研究,檢索范圍包括中國知網(wǎng)系列數(shù)據(jù)庫(CNKI)、萬方數(shù)據(jù)庫、中國生物醫(yī)學(xué)文獻(xiàn)數(shù)據(jù)庫(CBM)、The Cochrane Library、Pub Med。中文檢索詞為丹紅、丹紅注射液、高血壓合并腎損害、高血壓性腎損害、高血壓腎病,英文檢索詞為Danhong、hypertension、hypertensive、renal。檢索截至2016年12月31日公開發(fā)表的已有文獻(xiàn),采用Cochrane系統(tǒng)評(píng)價(jià)手冊(cè)偏倚風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)估工具評(píng)估納入研究的偏倚風(fēng)險(xiǎn),采用Rev Man 5.2軟件對(duì)選取的隨機(jī)對(duì)照研究資料進(jìn)行Meta分析。結(jié)果納入9項(xiàng)合格臨床試驗(yàn)文獻(xiàn),共計(jì)951例患者,其中5項(xiàng)試驗(yàn)研究樣本量50例;臨床試驗(yàn)僅提及隨機(jī)分組但均未說明具體隨機(jī)分配方法,均未采用盲法觀察,納入研究方法學(xué)偏倚風(fēng)險(xiǎn)較高。臨床療效分析結(jié)果顯示,丹紅注射液治療可降低高血壓腎損害患者尿微量白蛋白[均數(shù)差(MD)=-11.12mg/L,95%CI為(-13.53~-8.72)mg/L]、尿β2微球蛋白[MD=-0.12 mg/L,95%CI為(-0.15~-0.08)mg/L]、血肌酐[MD=-40.26μmol/L,95%CI為(-57.90~-22.61)μmol/L]、血尿素氮[MD=-1.54 mmol/L,95%CI為(-2.76~-0.31)mmol/L],提高內(nèi)生肌酐清除率[MD=26.26 m L/min,95%CI為(14.91~37.62)m L/min],與對(duì)照組比較差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P均0.05)。文獻(xiàn)發(fā)表偏倚的倒漏斗圖不對(duì)稱,提示存在一定的發(fā)表偏倚風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。結(jié)論丹紅注射液可減少高血壓腎損害患者尿蛋白的排泄,改善腎功能,具有較好的臨床療效;但小樣本、異質(zhì)性和高偏倚風(fēng)險(xiǎn)研究可能影響結(jié)果的可靠性。
[Abstract]:Objective to investigate the effect of Danhong injection on renal function in hypertensive patients with renal damage. Methods A randomized controlled study was conducted to search and screen Danhong injection for the treatment of hypertensive renal damage. The search scope included (CNKI), Wanfang database and (CBM), The Cochrane Library,Pub Med. database of Chinese biomedical literature. Chinese key words are Danhong, Danhong injection, hypertension with renal damage, hypertensive nephropathy, English key words are Danhong,hypertension,hypertensive,renal. To search the literature published as of December 31, 2016, the bias risk was evaluated by the Cochrane system Evaluation Manual, and the selected randomized controlled study data was analyzed by Meta using Rev Man 5.2 software. Results A total of 951 patients were included in 9 qualified clinical trials, of which 50 were studied in 5 trials. The clinical trials only mentioned random grouping but did not describe the specific randomized distribution method, and none of them were observed by blind method. The risk of methodological bias is higher. The results of clinical efficacy analysis showed that 涓圭孩娉ㄥ皠娑叉不鐤楀彲闄嶄綆楂樿鍘嬭偩鎹熷鎮(zhèn)ｈ，

本文編號(hào)：2272398