Table 3 Chinese Herbal Medicine for Improving QOL among Cancer Patients: Overview of Meta-Analyses Results.

From: Effectiveness of Chinese herbal medicine for cancer palliative care: overview of systematic reviews with meta-analyses

First author and year of publication

Comparison^

Outcome assessment method

No. of studies (No. of patients)

Pooled results (95% CI)

Heterogeneity I2 (%)

Quality of evidence

Non-small lung cell cancer

Cui, 2011

KS+NP vs. NP

Improvement rate*

5(NR)

OR: 2.38 [1.43, 3.95]

0.0

Moderate

Ma, 2011a

KS+NP vs. NP

Improvement rate

7(537)

OR: 2.78 [1.87, 4.15]

0.0

Moderate

Ma, 2012b

KS+TP vs. TP

Improvement rate

6(475)

OR: 3.26 [2.22, 4.80]

0.0

Moderate

Zhu, 2009

KLT+NP vs. NP

Responder rate #

4(234)

RR: 1.34 [1.14, 1.58]

0.0

Moderate

Yan, 2013

KLT+NP vs. NP

Improvement rate

7(505)

RR: 1.73 [1.34, 2.23]

57.0

Moderate

Dong, 2010b

SFI + platinum containing chemotherapy vs. platinum containing chemotherapy

Responder rate

20(1336)

RR: 1.57 [1.45, 1.70]

24.8

Moderate

Sheng, 2013

SFI + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy

Responder rate

27(1805)

RR: 1.40 [1.30, 1.52]

44.0

Moderate

Zhuang, 2011

Kang Ai injection +TP vs. TP

Improvement rate

5(356)

OR: 3.13 [1.88, 5.20]

0.0

Moderate

Qin, 2012b

Kang Ai injection+ chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy

Improvement rate

11(804)

OR: 1.87 [1.60, 2.19]

0.0

Moderate

Ma, 2004

CHM + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy

Responder rate

7(555)

OR: 3.36 [2.47, 4.57]

NR

Moderate

Li, 2013

CHM+ chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy

Improvement rate

6(526)

RR: 3.25 [2.22, 4.77]

51.0

Moderate

Liu, 2013

Zijinglong + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy

Improvement rate

6(346)

RR: 4.14 [2.80, 6.12]

77.0

Moderate

 

Zijinglong + MVP vs. MVP

Improvement rate

3(150)

RR: 12.72[4.70, 34.43]

42.0

Moderate

Xiao, 2013

Xiaoaiping injection+platinum containing chemotherapy vs. platinum containing chemotherapy

Improvement rate

10(588)

OR: 1.57 [1.12, 2.20]

0.0

Moderate

He, 2013

Shenfu Injection +chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy

Improvement rate

3(198)

OR: 2.72 [1.48, 5.00]

0.0

Moderate

Liver cancer

Ma, 2011b

KS+TACE vs. TACE

Improvement rate

6(447)

OR: 2.58 [1.71, 3.89]

0.0

Moderate

Guo,2010

CHM+TACE vs. TACE

Improvement rate

26(1882)

OR: 1.78 [1.58, 2.01]

0.0

Moderate

Cheung, 2013

CHM+TACE vs. TACE

Improvement rate

27(2014)

RR: 1.74 [1.57, 1.93]

0.0

Moderate

  

KPS score

9(477)

MD: 10.03 [8.98, 11.07]

95.0

Moderate

Gastric cancer

Cai, 2012

SFI+ chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy

Improvement rate

8(534)

RR: 3.14 [2.11, 4.69]

7.0

Moderate

Wang, 2014

SFI+FLOFOX4 vs. FLOFOX4

Responder rate

6(505)

OR: 1.48 [1.26, 1.57]

33.0

Moderate

Wang, 2012b

CHM+ conventional care vs. conventional care

KPS score

17(1359)

MD: 0.51 [0.21, 1.82]

86.0

Low

Colorectal cancer

Guo, 2012

CHM + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy

Improvement rate

8(605)

RR: 1.85 [1.55, 2.21]

NR

Moderate

Wang, 2012a

CHM+ chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy

Improvement rate

6(282)

OR: 3.48 [2.17, 5.58]

0.0

Moderate

Breast cancer

Liu, 2012

KS+ chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy

Improvement rate

4(370)

OR: 2.98 [1.85,4.80]

0.0

Moderate

Fan, 2012

KS+ chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy

Improvement rate

4 (316)

RR: 3.44 [2.09, 5.67]

0.0

Moderate

Nasopharyngeal cancer

Qiao, 2011

CHM + radiotherapy vs. radiotherapy

Responder rate

2(166)

RR: 1.60 [1.30, 1.96]

0.0

Moderate

Various types of cancer

Dong, 2010a

Astragalus extract + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy

Responder rate

6(641)

RR: 1.46 [1.29, 1.66]

39.1

Moderate

Jin, 2012

Ganoderma lucidum extract + chemotherapy or radiotherapy vs. chemotherapy or radiotherapy

Improvement rate

3(284)

RR: 2.51 [1.86, 3.40]

48.0.

High

Wang, 2012c

Xiaoaiping injection+ chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy

Improvement rate

9(568)

RR: 1.80 [1.49, 2.18]

27.0

Moderate

Zhang, 2012

SFI+ chemotherapy or radiotherapy vs. chemotherapy or radiotherapy

Improvement rate

7(623)

OR: 3.07 [2.15, 4.39]

0.0

Moderate

  1. *QOL measured with the Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) scale. A KPS score increment >10 is defined as an improvement. Improvement rate  =  number of patients who had a KPS increment >10 / total number of patients, this definition apply to all improvement rate in Table 3.
  2. #A KPS score increment >0 is defined as an improvement. Responder rate  =  number of patients who had a KPS increment >0 / total number of patients, this definition apply to all improvement rate in Table 3.
  3. p < 0.05 for the heterogeneity test;
  4. ^CHM denotes the inclusion of all types of Chinese herbal medicines. The use of generic terms “chemotherapy” or “radiotherapy” denote that the specific treatments used were not described in the original meta-analyses publications.
  5. Keys: CHM, Chinese herbal medicine; CI confidence interval; FOLFOX, the FOLFOX regimen refers to 5-Fluorouracil + Leucovorin combined with Oxaliplatin; KLT, Kanglaite injection; KS, Compound Kushen injection; MD, mean difference; MVP, Mitomycin + Vindesine + Cisplatin; NP, Cisplatin + Vinorelbine; NR, not reported; OR, odds ratio; QOL, quality of life; RR, relative risk; SFI, Shenqi Fuzheng injection; TACE, Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization; TP, Paclitaxel + Cisplatin.
Back to article page