摘要
目的利用Meta分析方法对我国用血管扩张剂治疗突发性耳聋的临床试验进行分析,评价其治疗效果。方法运用系统评价的方法,计算机检索中国生物医学文献数据库,中国学术期刊全文数据库、VIP中文科技期刊全文数据库和万方数据库,检索时间截止2009年9月。纳入血管扩张剂治疗突发性耳聋的随机对照试验。按Co-chrane系统评价标准评价纳入研究质量,采用RevMan软件进行Meta分析。结果共纳入13个研究。Meta分析结果表明,血管扩张剂作用不优于激素;低分子右旋糖酐+复方丹参作用不优于其他血管扩张剂;复方丹参作用不优于其他药物治疗。结论血管扩张剂治疗突发性耳聋的疗效仍不清楚。由于上述的结论基本来自单个研究,研究质量参差不齐,大多数研究样本量小,因此使用结论时必须谨慎。目前尚无足够的证据证明哪种药物更有效,期待开展更多高质量、大样本、长期随访的对照试验,以提供更可靠的证据。
Objective To use a Meta-analysis method on the clinical test of vasodilators treatment in sudden deafness and to evaluate their treatment effect in china.Methods The application methods of systematic reviews,computer retrieval the China biological medicine literature database,China full-text database academic journals,VIP,Chinese full-text database of science and technology journals and Wangfang datebase.Search time was cut off in September 2009.Randomized controlled trials about vasodilators treatment in sudden deafness were included.The standard of Cochrane systematic reviews were used to evaluate the quality of included studies.Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software.Results A total of 13 studies included.The meta-analysis results show that the effects of vasodilators was not superior to steroids;The role of low molecular weight dextran＋Danshen were not better than the other vasodilators;Effect of compound Danshen was not better than other drugs treatment.Conclusion The effect of vasodilators treatment of sudden deafness is still unclear.Since the basic conclusions from single study,the small sample size,and limited number of studies.Therefore,conclusions must be careful to use.There is no sufficient evidence that which is more effective drugs.Expect that there are more high quality,large sample,and long-term follow-up of controlled trials,further to provide more reliable evidence.
出处
《实用临床医学（江西）》
CAS
2010年第5期73-76,共4页
Practical Clinical Medicine
