绎 1 2 1. 8300112 援 830000 CNKI 1979-20121989-2013 PubMed/MEDLINE Jadad Cochrane RevMan 5.2.0 Meta 4 360 Meta OS WMD 95%-0.48-0.81-0.160.04-0.150.22 RR 95% 1.671.292.151.220.354.20 doi: 10.11842/wst.2014.08.030 R276 A CAD 1 1.1 OTC 1.1.1 Cochrane 淤 于 盂 榆 Organoleptic Score,OS Randomized Controlled TrialRCT 1.1.2 淤 于 2013-11-06 2014-08-18 盂 元 81060312 元元 1850
2014 绎 Vol.16 No.8 1.2 CNKI 1979 1-2012 12 1989 1-2013 6 Xipayi Mouth Rinse PubMed/MEDLINECochrane Cochrane RCT 1.3 RCT Cochrane Review 原 er' Handbook 4.2.2 RCT 4 淤 于 盂 榆 ABC 3 4 A B C Jadad [1] RCTs 1-5 1-2 3-5 [2,3] 1.4 Excel Cochrane RevMan 5.2.0 Weighted Mean DifferenceWMD Relative RiskRR 95% ConfidenceintervalCI P 约 0.1Fixed Effect Model Meta Ran 原 dom Effect Model Meta [4] Funnel Plot Analysis 2 2.1 18 9 1 1 1 2 OS 4 [5-8] 2.2 4 2 1 / / / / Jadad 1 2008 55 45 0.9% - - 1 - - - - 2 2 2009 60 60 - - 1 - - - 2 3 2010 30 30 - - 1 - - - 2 4 2012 40 40 - - - - 4 - - - - 1-1851
绎 1 2.3 OS 1 [5] OS [WMD0.4895%CI-0.81-0.16] OS 1 2 [67] OS 2 Chi 2 =0.14P=0.71I 2 =0% [WMD0.0495%CI-0.150.22] OS 2 2.4 1 [5] [RR1.6795%CI1.292.15] 3 2 [78] 2 Chi 2 =0.78P=0.38I 2 =0% [WMD1.2295% CI0.354.20] 4 2.5 5 3 1 OS Meta 2 OS Meta 3 Meta 1852
2014 绎 Vol.16 No.8 4 Meta OS 2 OS 4 Jadad 1 3 2 RCT RCT 1 Jadad A R, Moore R A, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials:is blinding necessary. Control Clin Trials, 1996, 17(1):1-12. 2 Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Dose quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses. Lancet, 1998, 352(9128):609-613. 3 Kjaergard L L, Nikolova D, Gluud C. Randomized clinical trials in HEPATOLOGY: predictors of quality. Hepatology, 1999, 30(5):1134-1138. 4 Schulz K F, Chalmers I, Hayes R, et al. Empirical evidence of bias. JAMA, 1995, 273(5):408-412. 5.. :,2008. 6,..,2009,19(10):630-631. 7,,. 30.,2010,45(1):75. 8,. 40.,2012,42(9):126-127. ASystematicReviewofRandomizedControlled Trials for Clinical Efficacy andosonxi-pa-yi Mouth Rinse for Simple Gingivitis Sun Hongyan 1,LyuAnkun 2 (1. Department of Science and Technolog, Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi 830011, China; 2. A ffiliated Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi 830000, China) Abstract: This study was aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of Xi-Pa-Yi (XPY) Mouth Rinse in the treatment of simple gingivitis and improved value for halitosis. Related literatures were systematically searched in the China Na 鄄 tional Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI, 1979-2012), Weipu Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals (1989-2013), PubMed and Cochrane Library. The methodological quality of included trials was assessed based on the Jadad scale. And the available data were analyzed with RevMan software (version 5.2.0). The results showed that a total of 4 stud 鄄 ies involving 360 participants satisfied the minimum criteria for meta-analysis. The evidences showed that the XPY Mouth Rinse was compared with saline or western medicine for treatment of the OS of simple gingivitis WMD (95% 1853
绎 confidence interval) were -0.48 (-0.81, -0.16), 0.04 (-0.15, 0.22), respectively; the XPY Mouth Rinse was com 鄄 pared with saline or western medicine for treatment of simple gingivitis clinical efficacy's RR (95% confidence inter 鄄 val) were 1.67 (1.29, 2.15), 1.22 (0.35, 4.20), respectively. It was concluded that the current clinical evidence showed that the effectiveness of XPY Mouth Rinse in the treatment of simple gingivitis was higher than the saline. It had similar effects with western medicine, which can reduce the OS, and with no significant side effects and easy to take. However, due to the low quality studies and small sample amount, it is stillneedtobeconfirmedbythehighquality, multi-center, large sample, randomized, double-blind clinical controlled trials. Keywords: Xi-Pa-Yi Mouth Rinse, simple gingivitis, systematic review, clinical efficacy, halitosis value 1854