|
Question: should FFXST be used for diabetic kidney disease?
Bibliography: Fufang Xueshuanton for diabetic nephropathy. Cochrane database of systematic reviews (year), issue [issue]. |
| Quality assessment | Summary of findings |
| Participants (studies) follow-up | Risk of bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Publication bias | Overall quality of evidence | Study event rates (%) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects |
| With control | With FFXST | Risk with control | Risk difference with FFXST (95% CI) |
|
| Total effective rate (CRITICAL OUTCOME) |
| 177 (2 studies) | Serious1 | No serious inconsistency | No serious indirectness | No serious imprecision | Undetected | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE1 due to risk of bias | 56/89 (62.9%) | 76/88 (86.4%) | RR 1.37 (1.15 to 1.64) | Study population |
| 629 per 1000 | 233 more per 1000 (from 94 more to 403 more) |
| Moderate |
| 627 per 1000 | 232 more per 1000 (from 94 more to 401 more) |
|
| UAER (IMPORTANT OUTCOME; better indicated by lower values) |
| 383 (5 studies) | Serious1 | Serious2 | No serious indirectness | No serious imprecision | Undetected | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW1, 2 due to risk of bias, inconsistency | 193 | 190 | — | | The mean uaer in the intervention groups was 30.98 lower (49.3 to 12.66 lower) |
|
| ACR (IMPORTANT OUTCOME; better indicated by lower values) |
| 638 (6 studies) | Serious1 | Serious3 | No serious indirectness | No serious imprecision | Undetected | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW1, 3 due to risk of bias, inconsistency | 318 | 320 | — | | The mean acr in the intervention groups was 1.33 standard deviations lower (1.9 to 0.76 lower) |
|
| mAlb (mg/L) (IMPORTANT OUTCOME; better indicated by lower values) |
| 548 (6 studies) | Serious1 | Serious4 | No serious indirectness | No serious imprecision | Undetected | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW1, 4due to risk of bias, inconsistency | 274 | 274 | — | | The mean malb (mg/l) in the intervention groups was 36.29 lower (54.45 to 18.13 lower) |
|
| BUN (mmol/L) (IMPORTANT OUTCOME; better indicated by lower values) |
| 338 (4 studies) | Serious1 | Serious2 | No serious indirectness | Serious5 | Undetected | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW1, 2, 5 due to risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision | 167 | 171 | — | | The mean bun (mmol/l) in the intervention groups was 0.59 lower (1.46 lower to 0.27 higher) |
|
| HbA1C (IMPORTANT OUTCOME; better indicated by lower values) |
| 671 (8 studies) | Serious1
| No serious inconsistency | No serious indirectness | Serious4 | Undetected | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW1, 4 due to risk of bias, imprecision | 337 | 334 | — | | The mean hba1c in the intervention groups was 0.02 lower (0.12 lower to 0.08 higher) |
|
| LDL-C (IMPORTANT OUTCOME; better indicated by lower values) |
| 353 (4 studies) | Serious1 | No serious inconsistency | No serious indirectness | No serious imprecision | Undetected | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE1 due to risk of bias | 175 | 178 | - | | The mean ldl-c in the intervention groups was 0.39 lower (0.58 to 0.2 lower) |
|
| TG (IMPORTANT OUTCOME; better indicated by lower values) |
| 811 (9 studies) | Serious1 | Serious6 | No serious indirectness | No serious imprecision | Undetected | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW1, 6 due to risk of bias, inconsistency | 407 | 404 | — | | The mean tg in the intervention groups was 0.39 lower (0.63 to 0.15 lower) |
|
| SBP (NOT IMPORTANT OUTCOME; better indicated by lower values) |
| 275 (3 studies) | Serious | Serious7 | No serious indirectness | Serious5 | Undetected | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW5, 7 due to risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision | 138 | 137 | — | | The mean sbp in the intervention groups was 1.26 lower (3.86 lower to 1.34 higher) |
|
| CRP (mg/L) (NOT IMPORTANT OUTCOME; better indicated by lower values) |
| 148 (2 studies) | Serious1 | Serious8 | No serious indirectness | No serious imprecision | Undetected | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW1, 8 due to risk of bias, inconsistency | 74 | 74 | — | | The mean crp (mg/l) in the intervention groups was 1.92 lower (2.64 to 1.2 lower) |
|
