Review Article

The Effect and Safety of Xuefu Zhuoyue Prescription for Coronary Heart Disease: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Table 6

Summary of evidence.

Author, yearOutcomesStudies (participants)HeterogeneityRelative effect (95% CI)-valueQuality of Evidence

Guo-zhong Yi, 2014 [25]RAS12 (992)0%RR = 1.29 (1.20, 1.38)High
ECG9 (683)0%RR = 1.37 (1.22, 1.54)Moderate
HDL-C3 (342)0%MD = 0.29 (0.23, 0.35)Low
LDL-C3 (342)62%MD = 1.08  (0.72, 1.44)Low
TG3 (342)98%MD = 0.98 (−0.05, 2.02)Low
TC3 (342)83%MD = 1.27 (0.63, 1.91)P=0.0001Low
Shiqi Chen, 2022 [26]LVEF6 (520)62%MD = 6.35 (4.20, 8.50)Low
LVESD5 (416)98%MD = −3.48(−5.68, −1.29)Low
NO4 (284)95%MD = 12.57 (2.95, 22.19)Very Low
ET-15 (344)99%MD = −30.93 (−56.59, −5.27)Very Low
ICAM-13 (170)97%MD = 0.98, (−0.05, 2.02)Very Low
VCAM-13 (170)98%MD = −41.07 (−94.39, 12.25)Very Low
CRP3 (213)96%MD = −1.35 (−3.24, 0.53)Very Low
SOD3 (301)0%MD = 19.31 (15.96, 22.66)Very Low
MDA3 (301)0%MD = −1.61 (−1.90, −1.33)Very Low
BNP3 (192)99%MD = −49.43 (−71.18, −27.68)Very Low
CK-MB4 (361)96%MD = −10.08 (−14.01, −6.15)Very Low
Shuo Zhang, 2021 [27]AF9 (1, 349)98%MD = −1.01 (−1.31, −0.71)Low
DAP8 (1, 259)99%MD = −1.39 (−1.98, −0.80)Low
Clinical Efficiency Rate22 (2, 089)0%RR = 1.24(1.19, 1.29)Moderate
ECG7 (619)18%RR = 1.31(1.18, 1.46)Moderate
WBV2 (238)0%MD = −0.73 (−0.96, −0.50)Low
PV3 (343)93%MD = −0.46(−0.65, −0.28)Very Low
FB3 (343)68%MD = −0.65 (−0.79, −0.52)Very Low
NO3 (286)0%MD = 4.69 (4.24, 5.13)Low
ET-13 (286)0%MD = −14.18 (−17.74, −10.61)Low
AE6 (716)0%RR = 0.65(0.38, 1.10)Low
Xiaochen Yang, 2014 [28]RAS7 (477)0%RR = 1.26 (1.16, 1.38)Low
ECG4 (276)0%RR = 1.20 (1.04, 1.38)Very Low
Zhou Fang, 2016 [29]Clinical Efficiency Rate21 (1, 865)58%RR = 1.24 (1.16, 1.33)Low
ECG16 (1, 443)74%RR = 1.42 (1.22, 1.66)Low
Huai Guo, 2017 [30]Clinical Efficiency Rate12 (1, 252)0%OR = 3.56 (2.49, 5.10)Low
CRP3 (364)53%MD = −0.91 (−1.14, −0.69)Very Low
ECG8 (758)15%OR = 2.76 (1.97, 3.87)Low
Jinfeng Liu, 2020 [31]RAS9 (754)0%RR = 1.24 (1.15, 1.33)Moderate
AEECG6 (476)0%RR = 1.36 (1.21, 1.53)Low
Min Liu, 2016 [32]Clinical Efficiency Rate (XFZY + CT vs CT)5 (378)43%RR = 1.31 (1.18, 1.44)Low
Clinical Efficiency Rate (XFZY vs CT)3 (220)41%RR = 1.24 (1.09, 1.41)Low
RAS (XFZY + CT vs CT)5 (378)50%RR = 1.28 (1.06, 1.55)Very Low
RAS (XFZY vs CT)2 (120)55%RR = 1.41 (1.07, 1.84)Very Low
Yun Liu, 2017 [33]RAS9 (837)0%OR = 2.83 (2.05, 3.92)Low
ECG9 (837)0%OR = 2.83 (2.56, 5.77)Low
Yao Meng, 2021 [34]RAS9 (797)0%OR = 3.75 (2.42, 5.80)High
ECG4 (411)0%OR = 4.05 (2.21, 7.42)Moderate
Number of angina attacks3 (390)97%SMD = −5.64 (−8.10, −3.18)Very Low
LDL-C3 (223)91%SMD = −1.55 (−2.62, −0.48)Very Low
TC3 (223)59%SMD = −1.03 (−1.49, −0.56)Very Low
Guohua Zheng, 2012 [35]ECG (XFZY + CT vs CT)10 (717)0%RR = 0.31, (0.21, 0.45)Low
ECG (XFZY vs CT)2 (171)0%RR = 0.93, (0.48, 1.81)Very Low
RAS (XFZY + CT vs CT)8 (632)0%RR = 0.61 (0.49, 0.75)Low
RAS (XFZY vs CT)2 (171)0%RR = 0.98 (0.71, 1.36)Very Low