Efficacy and Safety of Fuzi Formulae on the Treatment of Heart Failure as Complementary Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of High-Quality Randomized Controlled Trials
Table 5
Statement of facts (SoF) table for first outcomes.
Primary outcomes of the treatment of heart failure as complementary therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality randomized controlled trials
Patient or population: patients with the treatment of heart failure as complementary therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality randomized controlled trials Intervention: primary outcomes
Outcomes
Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)
Relative effect (95% CI)
No. of participants (studies)
Quality of the evidence (GRADE)
Comments
Assumed risk
Corresponding risk
Control
Primary outcomes
Plasma NT-proBNP level Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Scale from 1 to 35000. Follow-up: 10–168 days
The mean plasma NT-proBNP level ranged across control groups from 403.5 to 4455.8 pg/ml
The mean plasma NT-proBNP level in the intervention groups was 1.76 standard deviations lower (2.87 to 0.66 lower)
483 (6 studies)
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low
SMD −1.76 (−2.87 to −0.66)
Efficacy on TCM Guiding Principles of clinical Research on new Chinese medicine for heart failure Follow-up: 6–168 days
Study population
RR 1.37 (1.26 to 1.48)
760 (7 studies)
⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate
638 per 1000
874 per 1000 (804 to 945)
Moderate
620 per 1000
849 per 1000 (781 to 918)
Efficacy on TCMS-FZF plus CHFST vs CHFST Follow-up: 10–84 days
Study population
RR 1.35 (1.22 to 1.48)
472 (5 studies)
⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate
652 per 1000
881 per 1000 (796 to 965)
Moderate
620 per 1000
837 per 1000 (756 to 918)
Efficacy of TCMS-FZF plus CHFST vs placebo plus CHFST Follow-up: 6–168 days
Study population
RR 1.42 (1.23 to 1.64)
288 (2 studies)
⊕⊕⊕⊕ high
615 per 1000
874 per 1000 (757 to 1000)
Moderate
615 per 1000
873 per 1000 (756 to 1000)
The basis for the assumed risk (e.g., the median control group risk across studies) is provided. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio. GRADE working group grades of evidence: high quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect; moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate; low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate; very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate.
