A Systematic Review Of The Treatment Of Ulcerative Colitis By Qingchang

Objective:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of clearing away intestinal dampness and heat methods on ulcerative colitis.Methods:According to the systematic review method, we searched the literature from Chinese Science and Technology Academic Journal(VIP), the China National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI), Wanfang database, PUBMED and retrieve part of Chinese core journals by hand and searched literature cite, while the time was limited from2003to2013. We filtered literature based on the included and excluded standard, evaluated quality of the literature according to evaluation standard of quality and then analyzed the data by RevMan5.2software.Results:We brought into twenty research which included a total of1797cases with ulcerative colitis. The quality of these research assessed by Jadad score was low. The meta-analysis results show:the treatment group had a better clinical effect than the SASP group [RR=1.20,95%CI (1.13,1.28), P<0.00001]. And also better than5-ASA [RR=1.19,95%CI (1.12,1.26), P<0.00001]. Meanwhile the treatment group could improve the TCM syndromes significantly [RR=1.18,95%CI(1.09,1.28), P<0.0001], the colonoscopy integral [WMD=0.55,95%CI (0.16,0.94), P=0.006], the symptoms integral [WMD=2.16,95%CI (1.50,2.83), P<0.00001], and also could relieve abdominal pain [WMD=0.55,95%CI (0.43,0.67),P<0.00001], the bloody mucopurulent stool[WMD=0.50,95%CI(0.18,0.81), P=0.002], diarrhea [WMD=0.44,95%CI (0.23,0.66), P<0.0001], tenesmus [WMD=0.41,95%CI (0.07,0.74), P=0.02]. The incidence of adverse reaction was lower than the control group.Conclusion:This study suggests that clearing away intestinal dampness and heat methods on ulcerative colitis can improve the clinical effect better than the control group. The incidence of adverse reaction is low, and the short-term security may be higher. However the existing evidence can not fully prove the efficacy and safety of clearing away intestinal dampness and heat methods, for the researches have a low methodological quality and exist many inadequacies and publication bias. Therefore high quality of large sample, multicenter, randomized, controlled trials are needed to further confirme the conclusion.