Effectiveness, Medication Patterns, and Adverse Events of Traditional Chinese Herbal Patches for Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review

Table 4

Effect estimates of TCHPs for OA about CCTs.

First author (year)	Treatment group (𝑛/𝑁)	Control group (𝑛/𝑁)	Effect estimate (95% CI)	Comparisons
Global effectiveness rate
Liu, 2004 [42]	12/90	24/86	RR 0.48 (0.26, 0.89)	Self-prescribed herbal patch versus sodium hyaluronate
Cheng, 2009 [44]	3/42	3/21	RR 0.50 (0.11, 2.27)	San Huang patch versus Gu Tong patch
Dong, 2007 [46]	3/42	5/36	RR 0.51 (0.13, 2.00)	Shu Jin patch versus Zhi Tong Xiao Yan patch
Feng, 2006 [43]*	5/36; 6/36	8/33; 12/33	RR 0.48 (0.26, 0.89)^#; RR 0.46 (0.19, 1.08)§	Gu Ci patch versus one control patch
Kuang, 2010 [12]	4/48	9/46	RR 0.43 (0.14, 1.29)	Zhong Tong Xiao Babu patch versus Zhong Tong Xiao patch
Liu, 2008 [49]	4/260	4/100	RR 0.38 (0.10, 1.51)	Hei Hu patch versus Qian Shan Huo Xue patch
Wang, 2005 [45]	1/48	4/18	RR 0.09 (0.01, 0.78)	Zhen Tong Xiao Yan patch versus Fu Fang Nan Xing Zhi Tong patch
Wen, 2008 [34]	5/52	11/54	RR 0.47 (0.18, 1.27)	Xi Tong Kang patch versus Tong Luo Qu Tong patch
Xu, 2000 [48]	7/105	5/20	RR 0.27 (0.09, 0.76)	Fu Fang San sheng patch versus Zhuang Gu Guan Jie pill
Zhang, 2010 [50]	6/36 (5d); 4/36 (10d)	9/36 (5d); 7/36 (10d)	RR 0.67 (0.26, 1.68); RR 0.57 (0.18, 1.78)	Gu Ci pacth versus She Xiang Zhuang Gu patch
Zhang, 2010 [33]	6/54	12/54	RR 0.50 (0.20, 1.24)	Wen Tong patch versus Tong Luo Qu Tong patch
Zhao, 2007 [47]	7/62	15/50	RR 0.38 (0.17, 0.85)	Gu Bi Tong patch versus Fu Fang Nan Xing Zhi Tong patch

Data was synthesized using RR with 95% CI; *three-arm study, knee pain, and ROM about “Gu Ci” patch versus control patch were obtained; ^#for knee pain; §for ROM.