Chinese General Practice ›› 2022, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (33): 4106-4116.DOI: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2021.00.536
Special Issue: 内分泌代谢性疾病最新文章合辑; 中医最新文章合辑
• Evidence-based Medicine • Previous Articles Next Articles
Received:
2022-01-28
Revised:
2022-04-23
Published:
2022-11-20
Online:
2022-07-21
Contact:
PI Min
About author:
通讯作者:
皮敏
作者简介:
基金资助:
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.chinagp.net/EN/10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2021.00.536
第一作者 | 发表年份(年) | 样本量(对照组/试验组) | 性别(男/女) | 年龄(岁) | 干预措施 | DN病程(年) | DPN病程(年) | 疗程 | 结局指标 | 中医辨证 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
对照组 | 试验组 | 对照组 | 试验组 | 对照组 | 试验组 | 对照组 | 试验组 | 对照组 | 试验组 | ||||||
韩丽云[ | 2016 | 33/33 | 17/16 | 18/15 | 63.8±5.9 | 63.1±6.2 | A | B | 7.8±3.1 | 8.1±2.6 | 2.95±0.89 | 3.00±0.85 | 60 d | ①②③④⑤ | 是 |
韩清[ | 2018 | 30/34 | 19/11 | 22/12 | 65.6±4.7 | 66.9±3.6 | A | B | 3~12 | 4~11 | 0.46~7.00 | 0.42~6.50 | 28 d | ①③⑤ | 否 |
王冰梅[ | 2010 | 32/34 | 18/14 | 20/14 | 58.45±8.52 | 56.10±5.33 | A | B | 8.67±5.72 | 8.71±3.98 | 2.86±2.59 | 2.91±2.38 | 28 d | ②③④⑤ | 否 |
魏明[ | 2013 | 30/30 | 14/16 | 19/11 | 61.73±10.31 | 56.32±9.32 | A | B | 10.70±2.22 | 11.20±3.13 | 4.50±3.41 | 5.07±3.82 | 40 d | ①②③④⑤ | 否 |
闫继红[ | 2007 | 42/46 | 22/20 | 24/22 | 46.5~75.6 | 46.7~75.0 | A | B | 5.9~19.0 | 6.6~18.4 | 0.7~11.8 | 0.8~12.4 | 90 d | ④⑤ | 否 |
朱水平[ | 2018 | 38/38 | 24/14 | 25/13 | 52.8±7.9 | 54.0±8.5 | A | B | 7.6±2.7 | 7.9±5.9 | 9.2±3.4 | 9.0±7.5 | 30 d | ① | 否 |
张智瑞[ | 2018 | 32/32 | 17/15 | 14/18 | 54.94±8.46 | 55.59±7.89 | A | B | NA | NA | 2.87±1.70 | 2.67±1.22 | 28 d | ①②③ | 是 |
邓柳玉[ | 2011 | 42/44 | 48/38a | 45.4 | 45.4 | A | B | 11 | 11 | 7 | 7 | 34~36 d | ①②③④ | 否 | |
丁泳[ | 2011 | 50/50 | 28/22 | 29/21 | 57.4 | 58.2 | A | C | NA | NA | NA | NA | 6周 | ①②③④⑤ | 否 |
范红梅[ | 2011 | 20/20 | 11/9 | 8/12 | 65.68±3.09 | 66.08±3.72 | A | C | 0.42~10.00 | 0.50~7.00 | NA | NA | 3周 | ① | 是 |
解晓静[ | 2014 | 28/27 | 14/14 | 15/12 | 56.42±4.78 | 58.34±5.65 | A | C | 8.32±3.46 | 9.83±4.05 | 3.05±1.24 | 2.7±1.62 | 8周 | ②③④⑤ | 是 |
卢翔[ | 2016 | 30/30 | 16/14 | 15/15 | 57.8±9.2 | 58.3±8.6 | A | C | 9.6±2.9 | 9.8±3.2 | NA | NA | 1个月 | ①②③④⑤ | 是 |
李鸣镝[ | 2009 | 30/31 | 21/9 | 18/13 | 61.03±10.52 | 61.90±7.62 | A | C | 8.58±6.38 | 9.01±6.42 | 1.56±1.74 | 2.09±3.62 | 8周 | ①④⑤ | 是 |
陈雄威[ | 2012 | 40/40 | 22/18 | 21/19 | 62.5±9.2 | 62.3±8.4 | A | C | 10.33±3.20 | 10.21±7.30 | NA | NA | 3周 | ①④⑤ | 否 |
曹晶[ | 2014 | 20/20 | 10/10 | 9/11 | 61.35±8.83 | 60.10±10.30 | A | C | 10.85±5.03 | 10.85±5.35 | NA | NA | 2个月 | ① | 是 |
李象辉[ | 2016 | 30/30 | 14/16 | 11/19 | 59.2±7.8 | 59.4±7.6 | A | C | 9.2±3.0 | 9.0±3.2 | NA | NA | 14 d | ① | 是 |
范中农[ | 2014 | 38/37 | 20/18 | 18/19 | 47.56±10.10 | 46.23±9.30 | A | C | 6.86±2.90 | 7.26±3.10 | NA | NA | 2个月 | ②③④⑤ | 否 |
张洁[ | 2014 | 60/80 | 35/25 | 50/30 | 44.2±10.2 | 45.0±10.2 | A | C | 7.0±2.4 | 7.0±2.6 | NA | NA | 4周 | ④ | 否 |
张京慧[ | 2007 | 30/30 | 18/12 | 17/13 | 59.80±11.33 | 62.40±10.02 | A | C | 7.40±2.38 | 8.64±2.25 | NA | NA | 1个月 | ①④ | 否 |
赵乾[ | 2019 | 54/53 | 23/31 | 33/20 | 57.67±8.68 | 54.38±8.88 | A | C | 7.37±4.48 | 7.76±3.44 | NA | NA | 2个月 | ①⑤ | 否 |
朱岚[ | 2015 | 30/30 | 36/24a | 45~80 | 45~80 | A | C | 5.1~20.0 | 5.1~20.0 | NA | NA | 2周 | ③④ | 否 | |
焦生福[ | 2018 | 60/60 | 34/26 | 33/27 | 59.32±4.04 | 58.98±3.87 | A | C | 6.21±1.30 | 6.47±1.22 | 2.01±0.98 | 1.89±0.78 | 4周 | ②③④⑤ | 是 |
秦鸣[ | 2008 | 15/15 | 11/19a | 42~73 | 42~73 | A | D | 13.70±5.28 | 13.70±5.28 | 3.27±1.62 | 3.27±1.62 | NA | ① | 否 | |
周晖[ | 2009 | 27/56 | 11/16 | 24/32 | 63.99±6.37 | 62.48±8.05 | A | D | 10.25±6.08 | 12.44±7.19 | 2.34±2.17 | 3.21±2.54 | 6个月 | ① | 否 |
杨旭静[ | 2016 | 70/70 | 35/35 | 36/34 | 57.8±5.5 | 58.4±5.1 | A | D | 5.53±1.72 | 5.29±1.87 | NA | NA | 56 d | ① | 否 |
范舜华[ | 2014 | 30/30 | 36/24a | 61.78±10.35 | 61.78±10.35 | A | D | NA | NA | 2.49±1.92 | 2.49±1.92 | 60 d | ④⑤ | 否 | |
李跃宗[ | 2013 | 30/30 | NA | NA | 59.53±10.4 | 56.43±11.27 | A | D | 10.74±7.10 | 9.77±5.28 | NA | NA | 30 d | ②③④⑤ | 否 |
陈芳[ | 2020 | 44/44 | 23/21 | 24/20 | 53.09±5.17 | 52.64±5.09 | A | E | 13.45±3.94 | 13.09±3.87 | 6.24±1.41 | 6.27±1.19 | 12周 | ①②③④⑤ | 是 |
赵兴锋[ | 2016 | 63/64 | 37/26 | 34/30 | 58.12±9.48 | 59.04±10.15 | A | E | 8.69±3.65 | 8.52±3.39 | 2.37±0.84 | 2.37±0.84 | 4周 | ①②③④⑤ | 是 |
赵进东[ | 2018 | 35/35 | 19/16 | 18/17 | 58.51±7.06 | 58.14±7.02 | A | E | 6.82±3.86 | 6.22±3.37 | NA | NA | 4周 | ① | 否 |
姚祈[ | 2017 | 38/38 | 18/20 | 17/21 | 56.28±5.63 | 57.19±6.08 | A | E | 8.87±1.81 | 57.19±6.08 | 1.62±0.48 | 1.74±0.53 | 4周 | ①②③④ | 是 |
杨启军[ | 2014 | 86/84 | 51/35 | 48/36 | 61.7±4.2 | 59.1±3.6 | A | E | 12.1±4.0 | 11.2±3.4 | NA | NA | 40 d | ①②③ | 是 |
李文俊[ | 2015 | 30/30 | 17/13 | 16/14 | 51.6±3.5 | 51.7±3.4 | A | E | 6.6±2.3 | 6.5±2.2 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 30 d | ①③⑤ | 否 |
刘柳[ | 2019 | 50/50 | 25/25 | 24/26 | 58.03±12.78 | 57.44±12.30 | A | E | 9.88±2.31 | 9.65±2.18 | NA | NA | 8周 | ①②③④⑤ | 否 |
苏娟[ | 2015 | 60/60 | 31/29 | 28/32 | 53.12±4.99 | 52.29±5.45 | A | E | 5.89±2.33 | 6.17±2.42 | 3.47±1.15 | 3.02±1.29 | 4周 | ①②③④⑤ | 否 |
王双[ | 2020 | 54/54 | 24/30 | 25/29 | 57.46±12.05 | 58.36±10.36 | A | E | NA | NA | 2.68±0.97 | 1.75±0.83 | 4周 | ① | 是 |
王文平[ | 2016 | 33/30 | 18/15 | 17/13 | 58.55±8.01 | 58.87±8.71 | A | E | NA | NA | 10.50±2.63 | 10.32±2.83 | 3周 | ① | 否 |
温晓新[ | 2014 | 30/30 | 16/14 | 15/15 | 54.53±5.94 | 55.12±5.76 | A | E | 12.00±5.09 | 11.40±4.56 | 8.03±3.27 | 7.53±3.19 | 30 d | ①②③④⑤ | 否 |
王燕华[ | 2014 | 30/30 | 16/14 | 17/13 | 58.13±7.06 | 57.23±6.61 | A | E | 12.83±2.53 | 13.53±2.66 | NA | NA | 2个月 | ①②③④ | 是 |
陈万红[ | 2010 | 24/24 | 11/13 | 12/12 | 42~83 | 43~86 | A | F | 4~24 | 2~27 | 1~5 | 1~5 | 2周 | ④⑤ | 否 |
刘海芳[ | 2013 | 60/60 | 30/30 | 32/28 | 56.50 | 56.41 | A | F | 7.46 | 7.54 | NA | NA | 2周 | ① | 是 |
熊志峰[ | 2014 | 30/30 | 17/13 | 16/14 | 52.17±9.87 | 50.80±8.28 | A | F | 6.87±3.17 | 3.65±0.54 | NA | NA | 66 d | ①④⑤ | 是 |
ZHANG[ | 2002 | 40/40 | 22/18 | 23/17 | 60.88±8.49 | 59.47±9.32 | A | F | 13.90±7.15 | 14.11±6.89 | NA | NA | 2周 | ②③④⑤ | 否 |
付咪[ | 2020 | 30/30 | 16/14 | 17/13 | 55.57±8.17 | 57.57±10.42 | A | F | NA | NA | 3.90±1.67 | 4.17±1.88 | 1个月 | ① | 是 |
Table 1 Basic characteristics of included studies
第一作者 | 发表年份(年) | 样本量(对照组/试验组) | 性别(男/女) | 年龄(岁) | 干预措施 | DN病程(年) | DPN病程(年) | 疗程 | 结局指标 | 中医辨证 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
对照组 | 试验组 | 对照组 | 试验组 | 对照组 | 试验组 | 对照组 | 试验组 | 对照组 | 试验组 | ||||||
韩丽云[ | 2016 | 33/33 | 17/16 | 18/15 | 63.8±5.9 | 63.1±6.2 | A | B | 7.8±3.1 | 8.1±2.6 | 2.95±0.89 | 3.00±0.85 | 60 d | ①②③④⑤ | 是 |
韩清[ | 2018 | 30/34 | 19/11 | 22/12 | 65.6±4.7 | 66.9±3.6 | A | B | 3~12 | 4~11 | 0.46~7.00 | 0.42~6.50 | 28 d | ①③⑤ | 否 |
王冰梅[ | 2010 | 32/34 | 18/14 | 20/14 | 58.45±8.52 | 56.10±5.33 | A | B | 8.67±5.72 | 8.71±3.98 | 2.86±2.59 | 2.91±2.38 | 28 d | ②③④⑤ | 否 |
魏明[ | 2013 | 30/30 | 14/16 | 19/11 | 61.73±10.31 | 56.32±9.32 | A | B | 10.70±2.22 | 11.20±3.13 | 4.50±3.41 | 5.07±3.82 | 40 d | ①②③④⑤ | 否 |
闫继红[ | 2007 | 42/46 | 22/20 | 24/22 | 46.5~75.6 | 46.7~75.0 | A | B | 5.9~19.0 | 6.6~18.4 | 0.7~11.8 | 0.8~12.4 | 90 d | ④⑤ | 否 |
朱水平[ | 2018 | 38/38 | 24/14 | 25/13 | 52.8±7.9 | 54.0±8.5 | A | B | 7.6±2.7 | 7.9±5.9 | 9.2±3.4 | 9.0±7.5 | 30 d | ① | 否 |
张智瑞[ | 2018 | 32/32 | 17/15 | 14/18 | 54.94±8.46 | 55.59±7.89 | A | B | NA | NA | 2.87±1.70 | 2.67±1.22 | 28 d | ①②③ | 是 |
邓柳玉[ | 2011 | 42/44 | 48/38a | 45.4 | 45.4 | A | B | 11 | 11 | 7 | 7 | 34~36 d | ①②③④ | 否 | |
丁泳[ | 2011 | 50/50 | 28/22 | 29/21 | 57.4 | 58.2 | A | C | NA | NA | NA | NA | 6周 | ①②③④⑤ | 否 |
范红梅[ | 2011 | 20/20 | 11/9 | 8/12 | 65.68±3.09 | 66.08±3.72 | A | C | 0.42~10.00 | 0.50~7.00 | NA | NA | 3周 | ① | 是 |
解晓静[ | 2014 | 28/27 | 14/14 | 15/12 | 56.42±4.78 | 58.34±5.65 | A | C | 8.32±3.46 | 9.83±4.05 | 3.05±1.24 | 2.7±1.62 | 8周 | ②③④⑤ | 是 |
卢翔[ | 2016 | 30/30 | 16/14 | 15/15 | 57.8±9.2 | 58.3±8.6 | A | C | 9.6±2.9 | 9.8±3.2 | NA | NA | 1个月 | ①②③④⑤ | 是 |
李鸣镝[ | 2009 | 30/31 | 21/9 | 18/13 | 61.03±10.52 | 61.90±7.62 | A | C | 8.58±6.38 | 9.01±6.42 | 1.56±1.74 | 2.09±3.62 | 8周 | ①④⑤ | 是 |
陈雄威[ | 2012 | 40/40 | 22/18 | 21/19 | 62.5±9.2 | 62.3±8.4 | A | C | 10.33±3.20 | 10.21±7.30 | NA | NA | 3周 | ①④⑤ | 否 |
曹晶[ | 2014 | 20/20 | 10/10 | 9/11 | 61.35±8.83 | 60.10±10.30 | A | C | 10.85±5.03 | 10.85±5.35 | NA | NA | 2个月 | ① | 是 |
李象辉[ | 2016 | 30/30 | 14/16 | 11/19 | 59.2±7.8 | 59.4±7.6 | A | C | 9.2±3.0 | 9.0±3.2 | NA | NA | 14 d | ① | 是 |
范中农[ | 2014 | 38/37 | 20/18 | 18/19 | 47.56±10.10 | 46.23±9.30 | A | C | 6.86±2.90 | 7.26±3.10 | NA | NA | 2个月 | ②③④⑤ | 否 |
张洁[ | 2014 | 60/80 | 35/25 | 50/30 | 44.2±10.2 | 45.0±10.2 | A | C | 7.0±2.4 | 7.0±2.6 | NA | NA | 4周 | ④ | 否 |
张京慧[ | 2007 | 30/30 | 18/12 | 17/13 | 59.80±11.33 | 62.40±10.02 | A | C | 7.40±2.38 | 8.64±2.25 | NA | NA | 1个月 | ①④ | 否 |
赵乾[ | 2019 | 54/53 | 23/31 | 33/20 | 57.67±8.68 | 54.38±8.88 | A | C | 7.37±4.48 | 7.76±3.44 | NA | NA | 2个月 | ①⑤ | 否 |
朱岚[ | 2015 | 30/30 | 36/24a | 45~80 | 45~80 | A | C | 5.1~20.0 | 5.1~20.0 | NA | NA | 2周 | ③④ | 否 | |
焦生福[ | 2018 | 60/60 | 34/26 | 33/27 | 59.32±4.04 | 58.98±3.87 | A | C | 6.21±1.30 | 6.47±1.22 | 2.01±0.98 | 1.89±0.78 | 4周 | ②③④⑤ | 是 |
秦鸣[ | 2008 | 15/15 | 11/19a | 42~73 | 42~73 | A | D | 13.70±5.28 | 13.70±5.28 | 3.27±1.62 | 3.27±1.62 | NA | ① | 否 | |
周晖[ | 2009 | 27/56 | 11/16 | 24/32 | 63.99±6.37 | 62.48±8.05 | A | D | 10.25±6.08 | 12.44±7.19 | 2.34±2.17 | 3.21±2.54 | 6个月 | ① | 否 |
杨旭静[ | 2016 | 70/70 | 35/35 | 36/34 | 57.8±5.5 | 58.4±5.1 | A | D | 5.53±1.72 | 5.29±1.87 | NA | NA | 56 d | ① | 否 |
范舜华[ | 2014 | 30/30 | 36/24a | 61.78±10.35 | 61.78±10.35 | A | D | NA | NA | 2.49±1.92 | 2.49±1.92 | 60 d | ④⑤ | 否 | |
李跃宗[ | 2013 | 30/30 | NA | NA | 59.53±10.4 | 56.43±11.27 | A | D | 10.74±7.10 | 9.77±5.28 | NA | NA | 30 d | ②③④⑤ | 否 |
陈芳[ | 2020 | 44/44 | 23/21 | 24/20 | 53.09±5.17 | 52.64±5.09 | A | E | 13.45±3.94 | 13.09±3.87 | 6.24±1.41 | 6.27±1.19 | 12周 | ①②③④⑤ | 是 |
赵兴锋[ | 2016 | 63/64 | 37/26 | 34/30 | 58.12±9.48 | 59.04±10.15 | A | E | 8.69±3.65 | 8.52±3.39 | 2.37±0.84 | 2.37±0.84 | 4周 | ①②③④⑤ | 是 |
赵进东[ | 2018 | 35/35 | 19/16 | 18/17 | 58.51±7.06 | 58.14±7.02 | A | E | 6.82±3.86 | 6.22±3.37 | NA | NA | 4周 | ① | 否 |
姚祈[ | 2017 | 38/38 | 18/20 | 17/21 | 56.28±5.63 | 57.19±6.08 | A | E | 8.87±1.81 | 57.19±6.08 | 1.62±0.48 | 1.74±0.53 | 4周 | ①②③④ | 是 |
杨启军[ | 2014 | 86/84 | 51/35 | 48/36 | 61.7±4.2 | 59.1±3.6 | A | E | 12.1±4.0 | 11.2±3.4 | NA | NA | 40 d | ①②③ | 是 |
李文俊[ | 2015 | 30/30 | 17/13 | 16/14 | 51.6±3.5 | 51.7±3.4 | A | E | 6.6±2.3 | 6.5±2.2 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 30 d | ①③⑤ | 否 |
刘柳[ | 2019 | 50/50 | 25/25 | 24/26 | 58.03±12.78 | 57.44±12.30 | A | E | 9.88±2.31 | 9.65±2.18 | NA | NA | 8周 | ①②③④⑤ | 否 |
苏娟[ | 2015 | 60/60 | 31/29 | 28/32 | 53.12±4.99 | 52.29±5.45 | A | E | 5.89±2.33 | 6.17±2.42 | 3.47±1.15 | 3.02±1.29 | 4周 | ①②③④⑤ | 否 |
王双[ | 2020 | 54/54 | 24/30 | 25/29 | 57.46±12.05 | 58.36±10.36 | A | E | NA | NA | 2.68±0.97 | 1.75±0.83 | 4周 | ① | 是 |
王文平[ | 2016 | 33/30 | 18/15 | 17/13 | 58.55±8.01 | 58.87±8.71 | A | E | NA | NA | 10.50±2.63 | 10.32±2.83 | 3周 | ① | 否 |
温晓新[ | 2014 | 30/30 | 16/14 | 15/15 | 54.53±5.94 | 55.12±5.76 | A | E | 12.00±5.09 | 11.40±4.56 | 8.03±3.27 | 7.53±3.19 | 30 d | ①②③④⑤ | 否 |
王燕华[ | 2014 | 30/30 | 16/14 | 17/13 | 58.13±7.06 | 57.23±6.61 | A | E | 12.83±2.53 | 13.53±2.66 | NA | NA | 2个月 | ①②③④ | 是 |
陈万红[ | 2010 | 24/24 | 11/13 | 12/12 | 42~83 | 43~86 | A | F | 4~24 | 2~27 | 1~5 | 1~5 | 2周 | ④⑤ | 否 |
刘海芳[ | 2013 | 60/60 | 30/30 | 32/28 | 56.50 | 56.41 | A | F | 7.46 | 7.54 | NA | NA | 2周 | ① | 是 |
熊志峰[ | 2014 | 30/30 | 17/13 | 16/14 | 52.17±9.87 | 50.80±8.28 | A | F | 6.87±3.17 | 3.65±0.54 | NA | NA | 66 d | ①④⑤ | 是 |
ZHANG[ | 2002 | 40/40 | 22/18 | 23/17 | 60.88±8.49 | 59.47±9.32 | A | F | 13.90±7.15 | 14.11±6.89 | NA | NA | 2周 | ②③④⑤ | 否 |
付咪[ | 2020 | 30/30 | 16/14 | 17/13 | 55.57±8.17 | 57.57±10.42 | A | F | NA | NA | 3.90±1.67 | 4.17±1.88 | 1个月 | ① | 是 |
试验组患者干预措施 | 总有效率 | 治疗后正中神经MNCV | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
纳入研究数量(项) | I2值 | P1值 | Meta分析模型 | OR(95%CI) | Z值 | P2值 | 纳入研究数量(项) | I2值 | P1值 | Meta分析模型 | MD(95%CI) | Z值 | P2值 | |
B | 6[ | 0 | 1.00 | 固定效应模型 | 4.80(2.62,8.75) | 5.12 | <0.001 | 5[ | 90% | <0.001 | 随机效应模型a | 4.08(1.66,6.50) | 3.31 | <0.001 |
C | 9[ | 7% | 0.37 | 固定效应模型 | 3.22(2.15,4.81) | 5.70 | <0.001 | 5[ | 56% | 0.06 | 随机效应模型a | 2.68(1.48,3.88) | 4.37 | <0.001 |
D | 3[ | 33% | 0.23 | 固定效应模型 | 2.88(1.60,5.19) | 3.53 | <0.001 | 1[ | — | — | 固定效应模型 | 2.69(1.40,3.98) | 4.09 | <0.001 |
E | 12[ | 0 | 1.00 | 固定效应模型 | 3.20(2.31,4.43) | 7.01 | <0.001 | 8[ | 0 | 0.51 | 固定效应模型 | 4.40(3.69,5.12) | 12.08 | <0.001 |
F | 3[ | 0 | 0.78 | 随机效应模型 | 2.66(1.34,5.30) | 2.78 | <0.01 | 1[ | — | — | 固定效应模型 | 3.52(1.15,5.89) | 2.92 | <0.01 |
试验组患者干预措施 | 治疗后正中神经SNCV | 治疗后腓总神经MNCV | ||||||||||||
纳入研究数量(项) | I2值 | P1值 | Meta分析模型 | MD(95%CI) | Z值 | P2值 | 纳入研究数量(项) | I2值 | P1值 | Meta分析模型 | MD(95%CI) | Z值 | P2值 | |
B | 6[ | 84% | <0.001 | 随机效应模型 | 3.67(1.82,5.53) | 3.89 | <0.001 | 5[ | 63% | <0.05 | 随机效应模型a | 5.60(4.06,7.14) | 7.12 | <0.001 |
C | 6[ | 82% | <0.001 | 随机效应模型a | 2.64(1.0,4.28) | 3.16 | <0.001 | 10[ | 97% | <0.001 | 随机效应模型a | 2.86(0.08,5.65) | 2.02 | <0.001 |
D | 1[ | — | — | 固定效应模型 | 3.26(1.46,5.06) | 3.55 | <0.001 | 2[ | 65% | 0.09 | 随机效应模型a | 3.03(1.17,4.89) | 3.19 | <0.01 |
E | 9[ | 65% | <0.05 | 随机效应模型 | 4.16(2.98,5.33) | 6.93 | <0.001 | 7[ | 0 | 0.81 | 固定效应模型 | 4.09(3.42,4.75) | 12.03 | <0.001 |
F | 1[ | — | — | 固定效应模型 | 9.04(6.83,11.25) | 8.02 | <0.001 | 3[ | 47% | 0.15 | 固定效应模型 | 6.90(5.98,7.82) | 14.65 | <0.001 |
试验组患者干预措施 | 治疗后腓总神经SNCV | |||||||||||||
纳入研究数量(项) | I2值 | P1值 | Meta分析模型 | MD(95%CI) | Z值 | P2值 | ||||||||
B | 5[ | 69% | <0.05 | 随机效应模型 | 5.05(3.47,6.64) | 6.24 | <0.001 | |||||||
C | 8[ | 93% | <0.001 | 随机效应模型a | 3.70(1.38,6.03) | 3.12 | <0.001 | |||||||
D | 2[ | 0 | 0.45 | 固定效应模型 | 1.50(0.20,2.79) | 2.27 | 0.02 | |||||||
E | 6[ | 0 | 0.65 | 固定效应模型 | 3.99(3.19,4.79) | 9.82 | <0.001 | |||||||
F | 3[ | 88% | <0.05 | 随机效应模型a | 3.05(-0.05,6.65) | 1.66 | 0.10 |
Table 2 Meta-analysis results of efficacy of the five commonly used external therapies of TCM combined with conventional Western medicine in treating DPN
试验组患者干预措施 | 总有效率 | 治疗后正中神经MNCV | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
纳入研究数量(项) | I2值 | P1值 | Meta分析模型 | OR(95%CI) | Z值 | P2值 | 纳入研究数量(项) | I2值 | P1值 | Meta分析模型 | MD(95%CI) | Z值 | P2值 | |
B | 6[ | 0 | 1.00 | 固定效应模型 | 4.80(2.62,8.75) | 5.12 | <0.001 | 5[ | 90% | <0.001 | 随机效应模型a | 4.08(1.66,6.50) | 3.31 | <0.001 |
C | 9[ | 7% | 0.37 | 固定效应模型 | 3.22(2.15,4.81) | 5.70 | <0.001 | 5[ | 56% | 0.06 | 随机效应模型a | 2.68(1.48,3.88) | 4.37 | <0.001 |
D | 3[ | 33% | 0.23 | 固定效应模型 | 2.88(1.60,5.19) | 3.53 | <0.001 | 1[ | — | — | 固定效应模型 | 2.69(1.40,3.98) | 4.09 | <0.001 |
E | 12[ | 0 | 1.00 | 固定效应模型 | 3.20(2.31,4.43) | 7.01 | <0.001 | 8[ | 0 | 0.51 | 固定效应模型 | 4.40(3.69,5.12) | 12.08 | <0.001 |
F | 3[ | 0 | 0.78 | 随机效应模型 | 2.66(1.34,5.30) | 2.78 | <0.01 | 1[ | — | — | 固定效应模型 | 3.52(1.15,5.89) | 2.92 | <0.01 |
试验组患者干预措施 | 治疗后正中神经SNCV | 治疗后腓总神经MNCV | ||||||||||||
纳入研究数量(项) | I2值 | P1值 | Meta分析模型 | MD(95%CI) | Z值 | P2值 | 纳入研究数量(项) | I2值 | P1值 | Meta分析模型 | MD(95%CI) | Z值 | P2值 | |
B | 6[ | 84% | <0.001 | 随机效应模型 | 3.67(1.82,5.53) | 3.89 | <0.001 | 5[ | 63% | <0.05 | 随机效应模型a | 5.60(4.06,7.14) | 7.12 | <0.001 |
C | 6[ | 82% | <0.001 | 随机效应模型a | 2.64(1.0,4.28) | 3.16 | <0.001 | 10[ | 97% | <0.001 | 随机效应模型a | 2.86(0.08,5.65) | 2.02 | <0.001 |
D | 1[ | — | — | 固定效应模型 | 3.26(1.46,5.06) | 3.55 | <0.001 | 2[ | 65% | 0.09 | 随机效应模型a | 3.03(1.17,4.89) | 3.19 | <0.01 |
E | 9[ | 65% | <0.05 | 随机效应模型 | 4.16(2.98,5.33) | 6.93 | <0.001 | 7[ | 0 | 0.81 | 固定效应模型 | 4.09(3.42,4.75) | 12.03 | <0.001 |
F | 1[ | — | — | 固定效应模型 | 9.04(6.83,11.25) | 8.02 | <0.001 | 3[ | 47% | 0.15 | 固定效应模型 | 6.90(5.98,7.82) | 14.65 | <0.001 |
试验组患者干预措施 | 治疗后腓总神经SNCV | |||||||||||||
纳入研究数量(项) | I2值 | P1值 | Meta分析模型 | MD(95%CI) | Z值 | P2值 | ||||||||
B | 5[ | 69% | <0.05 | 随机效应模型 | 5.05(3.47,6.64) | 6.24 | <0.001 | |||||||
C | 8[ | 93% | <0.001 | 随机效应模型a | 3.70(1.38,6.03) | 3.12 | <0.001 | |||||||
D | 2[ | 0 | 0.45 | 固定效应模型 | 1.50(0.20,2.79) | 2.27 | 0.02 | |||||||
E | 6[ | 0 | 0.65 | 固定效应模型 | 3.99(3.19,4.79) | 9.82 | <0.001 | |||||||
F | 3[ | 88% | <0.05 | 随机效应模型a | 3.05(-0.05,6.65) | 1.66 | 0.10 |
结局指标 | Meta分析结果 | 敏感性分析结果 | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
纳入研究数量(项) | I2值 | P1值 | Meta分析模型 | MD(95%CI) | Z值 | P2值 | 纳入研究数量(项) | I2值 | P1值 | Meta分析模型 | MD(95%CI) | Z值 | P2值 | ||
治疗后正中神经SNCV | |||||||||||||||
试验组患者干预措施为B | 6[ | 84% | <0.001 | 随机效应模型 | 3.67(1.82,5.53) | 3.89 | <0.001 | 5[ | 29% | 0.23 | 固定效应模型 | 4.18(2.98,5.39) | 6.79 | <0.001 | |
试验组患者干预措施为E | 9[ | 65% | <0.05 | 随机效应模型 | 4.16(2.98,5.33) | 6.93 | <0.001 | 8[ | 23% | 0.25 | 固定效应模型 | 3.43(2.78,4.09) | 10.31 | <0.001 | |
治疗后腓总神经SNCV | |||||||||||||||
试验组患者干预措施为B | 5[ | 69% | <0.05 | 随机效应模型 | 5.05(3.47,6.64) | 6.24 | <0.001 | 4[ | 0 | 0.44 | 固定效应模型 | 5.89(4.85,6.92) | 11.17 | <0.001 |
Table 3 Sensitivity analysis results of efficacy of the five commonly used external therapies of TCM combined with conventional Western medicine in treating DPN
结局指标 | Meta分析结果 | 敏感性分析结果 | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
纳入研究数量(项) | I2值 | P1值 | Meta分析模型 | MD(95%CI) | Z值 | P2值 | 纳入研究数量(项) | I2值 | P1值 | Meta分析模型 | MD(95%CI) | Z值 | P2值 | ||
治疗后正中神经SNCV | |||||||||||||||
试验组患者干预措施为B | 6[ | 84% | <0.001 | 随机效应模型 | 3.67(1.82,5.53) | 3.89 | <0.001 | 5[ | 29% | 0.23 | 固定效应模型 | 4.18(2.98,5.39) | 6.79 | <0.001 | |
试验组患者干预措施为E | 9[ | 65% | <0.05 | 随机效应模型 | 4.16(2.98,5.33) | 6.93 | <0.001 | 8[ | 23% | 0.25 | 固定效应模型 | 3.43(2.78,4.09) | 10.31 | <0.001 | |
治疗后腓总神经SNCV | |||||||||||||||
试验组患者干预措施为B | 5[ | 69% | <0.05 | 随机效应模型 | 5.05(3.47,6.64) | 6.24 | <0.001 | 4[ | 0 | 0.44 | 固定效应模型 | 5.89(4.85,6.92) | 11.17 | <0.001 |
Figure 4 Evidence network for overall efficacy rate of the five commonly used external therapies of TCM combined with conventional Western medicine in treating DPN
Figure 5 Adjusted inverted funnel plot of the overall efficacy rate of the five commonly used external therapies of TCM combined with conventional Western medicine in treating DPN
干预措施 | A | B | C | D | E |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | 0.20 (0.11,0.36)a | — | — | — | |
C | 0.30 (0.19,0.44)a | 1.52 (0.72,3.04) | — | — | |
D | 0.32 (0.17,0.60)a | 1.61 (0.69,3.76) | 1.07 (0.52,2.30) | — | |
E | 0.30 (0.21,0.43)a | 1.52 (0.75,3.11) | 1.02 (0.61,1.77) | 0.95 (0.47,1.93) | |
F | 0.36 (0.17,0.75)a | 1.78 (0.70,4.76) | 1.19 (0.53,2.84) | 1.10 (0.43,2.93) | 1.18 (0.52,2.70) |
Table 4 Bayesian network Meta-analysis results of overall efficacy rate of the five commonly used external therapies of TCM combined with conventional Western medicine in treating DPN
干预措施 | A | B | C | D | E |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | 0.20 (0.11,0.36)a | — | — | — | |
C | 0.30 (0.19,0.44)a | 1.52 (0.72,3.04) | — | — | |
D | 0.32 (0.17,0.60)a | 1.61 (0.69,3.76) | 1.07 (0.52,2.30) | — | |
E | 0.30 (0.21,0.43)a | 1.52 (0.75,3.11) | 1.02 (0.61,1.77) | 0.95 (0.47,1.93) | |
F | 0.36 (0.17,0.75)a | 1.78 (0.70,4.76) | 1.19 (0.53,2.84) | 1.10 (0.43,2.93) | 1.18 (0.52,2.70) |
干预措施 | 排序1 | 排序2 | 排序3 | 排序4 | 排序5 | 排序6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
B | 0.70 | 0.16 | 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.00 |
C | 0.09 | 0.26 | 0.28 | 0.23 | 0.14 | 0.00 |
D | 0.08 | 0.19 | 0.21 | 0.26 | 0.25 | 0.00 |
E | 0.05 | 0.24 | 0.29 | 0.28 | 0.13 | 0.00 |
F | 0.08 | 0.15 | 0.14 | 0.19 | 0.45 | 0.00 |
Table 5 Probability ranking results of overall efficacy rate of the five commonly used external therapies of TCM combined with conventional Western medicine in treating DPN
干预措施 | 排序1 | 排序2 | 排序3 | 排序4 | 排序5 | 排序6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
B | 0.70 | 0.16 | 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.00 |
C | 0.09 | 0.26 | 0.28 | 0.23 | 0.14 | 0.00 |
D | 0.08 | 0.19 | 0.21 | 0.26 | 0.25 | 0.00 |
E | 0.05 | 0.24 | 0.29 | 0.28 | 0.13 | 0.00 |
F | 0.08 | 0.15 | 0.14 | 0.19 | 0.45 | 0.00 |
干预措施 | A | B | C | D | E |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | -3.63 (-5.58,-2.00)a | — | — | — | |
C | -2.69 (-4.35,-1.02)a | 0.94 (-1.35,3.54) | — | — | |
D | -2.72 (-6.17,0.88) | 0.90 (-2.78,5.13) | -0.03 (-3.94,3.83) | — | |
E | -4.50 (-5.91,-3.11)a | -0.86 (-2.98,1.55) | -1.81 (-4.04,0.35) | -1.79 (-5.69,1.95) | |
F | -3.54 (-7.47,0.62) | 0.09 (-4.11,4.77) | -0.87 (-5.16,3.54) | -0.84 (-6.15,4.55) | 0.94 (-3.25,5.27) |
Table 6 Bayesian network Meta-analysis results of median nerve MNCV improvement of the five commonly used external therapies of TCM combined with conventional Western medicine in treating DPN
干预措施 | A | B | C | D | E |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | -3.63 (-5.58,-2.00)a | — | — | — | |
C | -2.69 (-4.35,-1.02)a | 0.94 (-1.35,3.54) | — | — | |
D | -2.72 (-6.17,0.88) | 0.90 (-2.78,5.13) | -0.03 (-3.94,3.83) | — | |
E | -4.50 (-5.91,-3.11)a | -0.86 (-2.98,1.55) | -1.81 (-4.04,0.35) | -1.79 (-5.69,1.95) | |
F | -3.54 (-7.47,0.62) | 0.09 (-4.11,4.77) | -0.87 (-5.16,3.54) | -0.84 (-6.15,4.55) | 0.94 (-3.25,5.27) |
干预措施 | 排序1 | 排序2 | 排序3 | 排序4 | 排序5 | 排序6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.10 | 0.90 |
B | 0.13 | 0.29 | 0.32 | 0.19 | 0.07 | 0.00 |
C | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.21 | 0.38 | 0.31 | 0.00 |
D | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.16 | 0.22 | 0.33 | 0.06 |
E | 0.48 | 0.34 | 0.13 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
F | 0.27 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.16 | 0.19 | 0.04 |
Table 7 Probability ranking results of median nerve MNCV improvement of the five commonly used external therapies of TCM combined with conventional Western medicine in treating DPN
干预措施 | 排序1 | 排序2 | 排序3 | 排序4 | 排序5 | 排序6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.10 | 0.90 |
B | 0.13 | 0.29 | 0.32 | 0.19 | 0.07 | 0.00 |
C | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.21 | 0.38 | 0.31 | 0.00 |
D | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.16 | 0.22 | 0.33 | 0.06 |
E | 0.48 | 0.34 | 0.13 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
F | 0.27 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.16 | 0.19 | 0.04 |
干预措施 | A | B | C | D | E |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | -4.29 (-5.98,-2.64)a | — | — | — | |
C | -2.69 (-4.02,-1.28)a | 1.59 (-0.47,3.83) | — | — | |
D | -3.25 (-6.62,-0.02)a | 1.02 (-2.71,4.74) | -0.58 (-4.25,2.97) | — | |
E | -3.70 (-4.96,-2.49)a | 0.59 (-1.49,2.70) | -1.01 (-2.94,0.76) | -0.42 (-4.00,3.08) | |
F | -9.03 (-12.59,-5.47)a | -4.74 (-8.61,-0.75)a | -6.36 (-10.09,-2.51)a | -5.75 (-10.60,-0.86)a | -5.35 (-9.05,-1.48)a |
Table 8 Bayesian network meta-analysis results of median nerve SNCV improvement of the five commonly used external therapies of TCM combined with conventional Western medicine in treating DPN
干预措施 | A | B | C | D | E |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | -4.29 (-5.98,-2.64)a | — | — | — | |
C | -2.69 (-4.02,-1.28)a | 1.59 (-0.47,3.83) | — | — | |
D | -3.25 (-6.62,-0.02)a | 1.02 (-2.71,4.74) | -0.58 (-4.25,2.97) | — | |
E | -3.70 (-4.96,-2.49)a | 0.59 (-1.49,2.70) | -1.01 (-2.94,0.76) | -0.42 (-4.00,3.08) | |
F | -9.03 (-12.59,-5.47)a | -4.74 (-8.61,-0.75)a | -6.36 (-10.09,-2.51)a | -5.75 (-10.60,-0.86)a | -5.35 (-9.05,-1.48)a |
干预措施 | 排序1 | 排序2 | 排序3 | 排序4 | 排序5 | 排序6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.94 |
B | 0.01 | 0.19 | 0.36 | 0.32 | 0.12 | 0.00 |
C | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.12 | 0.36 | 0.50 | 0.00 |
D | 0.03 | 0.26 | 0.16 | 0.20 | 0.29 | 0.06 |
E | 0.01 | 0.50 | 0.35 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 0.00 |
F | 0.95 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Table 9 Probability ranking results of median nerve SNCV improvement of the five commonly used external therapies of TCM combined with conventional Western medicine in treating DPN
干预措施 | 排序1 | 排序2 | 排序3 | 排序4 | 排序5 | 排序6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.94 |
B | 0.01 | 0.19 | 0.36 | 0.32 | 0.12 | 0.00 |
C | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.12 | 0.36 | 0.50 | 0.00 |
D | 0.03 | 0.26 | 0.16 | 0.20 | 0.29 | 0.06 |
E | 0.01 | 0.50 | 0.35 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 0.00 |
F | 0.95 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
干预措施 | A | B | C | D | E |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | -5.57 (-7.97,-3.26)a | — | — | — | |
C | -2.88 (-4.55,-1.28)a | 2.68 (-0.19,5.58) | — | — | |
D | -3.02 (-6.54,0.39) | 2.55 (-1.60,6.77) | -0.13 (-3.95,3.67) | — | |
E | -4.29 (-6.21,-2.36)a | 1.30 (-1.71,4.38) | -1.39 (-3.96,1.11) | -1.27 (-5.13,2.66) | |
F | -6.34 (-9.31,-3.30)a | -0.75 (-4.55,3.11) | -3.46 (-6.87,0.05) | -3.32 (-7.88,1.28) | -2.04 (-5.63,1.55) |
Table 10 Bayesian network meta-analysis results of common personeal nerve MNCV improvement of the five commonly used external therapies of TCM combined with conventional Western medicine in treating DPN
干预措施 | A | B | C | D | E |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | -5.57 (-7.97,-3.26)a | — | — | — | |
C | -2.88 (-4.55,-1.28)a | 2.68 (-0.19,5.58) | — | — | |
D | -3.02 (-6.54,0.39) | 2.55 (-1.60,6.77) | -0.13 (-3.95,3.67) | — | |
E | -4.29 (-6.21,-2.36)a | 1.30 (-1.71,4.38) | -1.39 (-3.96,1.11) | -1.27 (-5.13,2.66) | |
F | -6.34 (-9.31,-3.30)a | -0.75 (-4.55,3.11) | -3.46 (-6.87,0.05) | -3.32 (-7.88,1.28) | -2.04 (-5.63,1.55) |
干预措施 | 排序1 | 排序2 | 排序3 | 排序4 | 排序5 | 排序6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.96 |
B | 0.31 | 0.46 | 0.17 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
C | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.10 | 0.42 | 0.47 | 0.00 |
D | 0.03 | 0.08 | 0.16 | 0.28 | 0.41 | 0.04 |
E | 0.04 | 0.19 | 0.48 | 0.22 | 0.06 | 0.00 |
F | 0.61 | 0.26 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
Table 11 Probability ranking results of common personeal nerve MNCV improvement of the five commonly used external therapies of TCM combined with conventional Western medicine in treating DPN
干预措施 | 排序1 | 排序2 | 排序3 | 排序4 | 排序5 | 排序6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.96 |
B | 0.31 | 0.46 | 0.17 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
C | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.10 | 0.42 | 0.47 | 0.00 |
D | 0.03 | 0.08 | 0.16 | 0.28 | 0.41 | 0.04 |
E | 0.04 | 0.19 | 0.48 | 0.22 | 0.06 | 0.00 |
F | 0.61 | 0.26 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
干预措施 | A | B | C | D | E |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | -5.70 (-8.03,-3.31)a | — | — | — | |
C | -3.95 (-5.49,-2.19)a | 1.74 (-1.06,4.64) | — | — | |
D | -1.46 (-4.62,1.77) | 4.23 (0.32,8.16)a | 2.49 (-1.14,5.92) | — | |
E | -4.03 (-5.97,-2.10)a | 1.67 (-1.41,4.67) | -0.10 (-2.69,2.34) | -2.57 (-6.37,1.06) | |
F | -2.73 (-5.39,-0.04)a | 2.97 (-0.57,6.48) | 1.19 (-1.95,4.31) | -1.29 (-5.39,2.92) | 1.30 (-1.99,4.66) |
Table 12 Bayesian network meta-analysis results of common personeal nerve SNCV improvement of the five commonly used external therapies of TCM combined with conventional Western medicine in treating DPN
干预措施 | A | B | C | D | E |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | -5.70 (-8.03,-3.31)a | — | — | — | |
C | -3.95 (-5.49,-2.19)a | 1.74 (-1.06,4.64) | — | — | |
D | -1.46 (-4.62,1.77) | 4.23 (0.32,8.16)a | 2.49 (-1.14,5.92) | — | |
E | -4.03 (-5.97,-2.10)a | 1.67 (-1.41,4.67) | -0.10 (-2.69,2.34) | -2.57 (-6.37,1.06) | |
F | -2.73 (-5.39,-0.04)a | 2.97 (-0.57,6.48) | 1.19 (-1.95,4.31) | -1.29 (-5.39,2.92) | 1.30 (-1.99,4.66) |
干预措施 | 排序1 | 排序2 | 排序3 | 排序4 | 排序5 | 排序6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.20 | 0.80 |
B | 0.65 | 0.21 | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C | 0.12 | 0.31 | 0.37 | 0.17 | 0.03 | 0.00 |
D | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.19 | 0.52 | 0.18 |
E | 0.17 | 0.35 | 0.31 | 0.14 | 0.03 | 0.00 |
F | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.16 | 0.46 | 0.22 | 0.02 |
Table 13 Probability ranking results of common personeal nerve SNCV improvement of the five commonly used external therapies of TCM combined with conventional Western medicine in treating DPN
干预措施 | 排序1 | 排序2 | 排序3 | 排序4 | 排序5 | 排序6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.20 | 0.80 |
B | 0.65 | 0.21 | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
C | 0.12 | 0.31 | 0.37 | 0.17 | 0.03 | 0.00 |
D | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.19 | 0.52 | 0.18 |
E | 0.17 | 0.35 | 0.31 | 0.14 | 0.03 | 0.00 |
F | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.16 | 0.46 | 0.22 | 0.02 |
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
吴瑞,赵丹丹,王竹风,等. 中医外治法治疗糖尿病周围神经病变研究进展[J]. 中医药学报,2018,46(3):106-110. DOI:10.19664/j.cnki.1002-2392.180096.
|
[5] |
中华中医药学会糖尿病分会. 糖尿病周围神经病变中医临床诊疗指南(2016版)[J]. 中医杂志,2017,58(7):625-630. DOI:10.13288/j.11-2166/r.2017.07.025.
|
[6] |
中华医学会糖尿病学分会. 中国2型糖尿病防治指南(2017年版)[J]. 中华糖尿病杂志,2018,10(1):4-67. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-5809.2018.01.003.
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] | |
[11] |
|
[12] |
韩丽云,武清敏,袁玉欣,等. 针刺联合甲钴胺片治疗糖尿病周围神经病变的临床观察[J]. 河北中医,2016,38(2):246-248,256. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1002-2619.2016.02.026.
|
[13] |
韩清,王锋,高鹏飞,等. 针刺联合甲钴胺穴位注射治疗老年糖尿病周围神经病变的临床观察[J]. 老年医学与保健,2018,24(4):442-445. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1008-8296.2018.04.024.
|
[14] |
王冰梅,马建,马莉. 针刺为主治疗糖尿病周围神经病变34例[J]. 针灸临床杂志,2010,26(8):17-18. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-0779.2010.08.006.
|
[15] |
魏明,时国臣. 以针刺井穴、背俞穴为主治疗糖尿病周围神经病变30例临床观察[J]. 内蒙古中医药,2013,32(8):48-49. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1006-0979.2013.08.056.
|
[16] |
闫继红. 针刺联合弥可保治疗糖尿病周围神经病变46例疗效观察[J]. 上海针灸杂志,2007,26(9):14-15. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-0957.2007.09.006.
|
[17] |
朱水平,梁莉,沈根明,等. 针刺联合甲钴胺片治疗糖尿病周围神经病变临床观察[J]. 新中医,2018,50(2):104-107. DOI:10.13457/j.cnki.jncm.2018.02.030.
|
[18] |
张智瑞. 针刺联合依帕司他治疗糖尿病周围神经病变的临床疗效观察[D]. 哈尔滨:黑龙江中医药大学,2018.
|
[19] |
邓柳玉. 针刺治疗对糖尿病周围神经病变患者神经电生理的影响[J]. 现代中西医结合杂志,2011,20(32):4058-4059,4063. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1008-8849.2011.32.005.
|
[20] | |
[21] |
范红梅,罗斌,于李. 补肾活血中药足浴治疗糖尿病下肢周围神经病变的临床观察[J]. 辽宁中医杂志,2011,38(3):507-509.
|
[22] |
解晓静,邢兆宏. 中药腿浴联合甲钴胺治疗糖尿病周围神经病变的临床观察[J]. 时珍国医国药,2014,25(1):119-120. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1008-0805.2014.01.050.
|
[23] |
卢翔. 合用中药足浴治疗糖尿病周围神经病变疗效观察[J]. 广西中医药大学学报,2016,19(1):34-36.
|
[24] |
李鸣镝,林兰,孙书臣,等. 中药糖痛方外洗治疗糖尿病周围神经病变的临床观察[J]. 中国康复理论与实践,2009,15(6):553-555. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1006-9771.2009.06.015.
|
[25] |
陈雄威. 硫辛酸联合中药外洗治疗糖尿病周围神经病变40例疗效观察[J]. 中国中医药科技,2012,19(1):73-74. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-7072.2012.01.053.
|
[26] |
曹晶. 糖痹外洗方治疗糖尿病周围神经病变临床研究[J]. 中医学报,2014,29(12):1727-1728.
|
[27] |
李象辉,吴生元. 吴氏扶阳法中药足浴治疗糖尿病肢冷症的临床观察[J]. 中西医结合研究,2016,8(5):253-254,256. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-4616.2016.05.011.
|
[28] |
范中农,岳双冰,张莉,等. 血府逐瘀汤加减手足浴治疗糖尿病末梢神经炎37例临床观察[J]. 河北中医,2014,36(5):700-701.
|
[29] |
张洁,秦国庆,刘海朋,等. 糖足康足浴对糖尿病患者下肢神经传导速度的影响[J]. 河北中医,2014,36(1):37-39.
|
[30] |
张京慧,黄凤毛,刘新华,等. 足浴按摩治疗60例糖尿病周围神经病变的疗效观察[J]. 中华护理杂志,2007,42(7):659-660.
|
[31] |
赵乾,冯占荣,孙潇潇,等. 白玉灵验散足浴治疗对糖尿病周围神经病变的改善作用分析[J]. 川北医学院学报,2019,34(4):460-463. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-3697.2019.04.37.
|
[32] |
朱岚,金剑虹,魏燕,等. 中西医结合治疗糖尿病周围神经病变疗效[J]. 浙江临床医学,2015,17(2):282-283.
|
[33] |
焦生福,薛淑萍. 自拟桃红通痹汤足浴对糖尿病周围神经病变患者神经传导速度及TCSS评分的影响[J]. 中国中医药科技,2018,25(5):716-717.
|
[34] |
秦鸣,张莉,郑祝建. 甲钴胺联合穴位按摩治疗糖尿病周围神经病变15例[J]. 实用临床医学,2008,9(11):42,44. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1009-8194.2008.11.025.
|
[35] |
周晖,谢培凤,商学征,等. 循经点穴治疗糖尿病性周围神经病变的临床研究[J]. 中医外治杂志,2009,18(2):11-12. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1006-978X.2009.02.005.
|
[36] |
杨旭静,周静,冯皖芬,等. 足部穴位按摩在消渴病痹症患者护理中的应用观察[J]. 上海护理,2016,16(3):41-44.
|
[37] |
范舜华,陈发胜,肖雪云. 渭良伤科油穴位按摩辅助治疗糖尿病周围神经病变的临床观察[J]. 中国医药指南,2014,12(11):269-270.
|
[38] |
李跃宗. 束悗疗法对糖尿病性周围神经病变治疗的临床研究[D]. 长春:长春中医药大学,2013.
|
[39] |
陈芳,赵璐,郭鑫鑫. 中西医结合治疗糖尿病周围神经病变44例临床观察[J]. 中国民族民间医药,2020,29(12):108-112.
|
[40] |
赵兴锋. 穴位注射天麻素注射液辅助硫辛酸治疗糖尿病周围神经病变疗效观察[J]. 现代中西医结合杂志,2016,25(5):517-519. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1008-8849.2016.05.020.
|
[41] |
赵进东,李艳,倪英群,等. 中药穴位注射治疗2型糖尿病周围神经病变临床观察[J]. 安徽中医药大学学报,2018,37(1):50-52. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.2095-7246.2018.01.016.
|
[42] |
姚祈. 子午流注纳子法穴位注射灯盏细辛对糖尿病周围神经病变患者神经电生理及血清炎症指标的影响[J]. 现代中西医结合杂志,2017,26(11):1141-1143,1148. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1008-8849.2017.11.002.
|
[43] | |
[44] |
李文俊. 穴位注射联合硫辛酸治疗糖尿病周围神经病变的临床疗效观察[J]. 保健医学研究与实践,2015,12(1):68-69,73.
|
[45] |
刘柳,蒋超,赵紫昊. 丹参川芎嗪注射液联合甲钴胺对糖尿病周围神经病变患者的治疗效果和对氧化应激反应的影响[J]. 中草药,2019,50(11):2670-2674. DOI:10.7501/j.issn.0253-2670.2019.11.025.
|
[46] |
苏娟. 丹红注射液穴位注射治疗糖尿病周围神经病变疗效观察[J]. 现代中西医结合杂志,2015,24(28):3107-3109. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1008-8849.2015.28.012.
|
[47] |
王双,张红瑾,宋蓓. 谷红注射液穴位注射联合常规疗法治疗糖尿病周围神经病变临床研究[J]. 新中医,2020,52(8):152-155. DOI:10.13457/j.cnki.jncm.2020.08.046.
|
[48] |
王文平,张玉璞,张金月. 穴位注射治疗糖尿病周围神经病变30例临床观察[J]. 中国民族民间医药,2016,25(7):107,110.
|
[49] |
温晓新. 红花黄素穴位注射治疗2型糖尿病周围神经病变临床观察[J]. 社区医学杂志,2014,12(11):23-24.
|
[50] |
王燕华. 穴位注射丹参川芎嗪注射液治疗糖尿病周围神经病变的临床研究[D]. 济南:山东中医药大学,2014.
|
[51] |
陈万红,张卫民,吴必嘉,等. 艾灸按摩联合甲钴胺治疗糖尿病周围神经病变的疗效观察——附24例报告[J]. 新医学,2010,41(3):180-182. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.0253-9802.2010.03.013.
|
[52] |
刘海芳,薛原,宗倩倩,等. 艾灸治疗糖尿病周围神经病变的临床观察[J]. 光明中医,2013,28(1):111-112. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1003-8914.2013.01.056.
|
[53] |
熊志峰. 艾灸联合甲钴胺治疗糖尿病周围神经病变临床观察[D]. 太原:山西中医学院,2014.
|
[54] |
|
[55] |
付咪. "调脏通络"灸法结合甲钴胺治疗糖尿病周围神经病变的临床研究[D]. 长春:长春中医药大学,2020.
|
[56] |
|
[57] |
|
[58] |
|
[59] |
|
[60] |
|
[61] |
|
[62] |
曾宪涛,曹世义,孙凤,等. Meta分析系列之六:间接比较及网状分析[J]. 中国循证心血管医学杂志,2012,4(5):399-402. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-4055.2012.05.003.
|
[63] |
|
[64] |
|
[65] |
|
[66] |
|
[1] | QUAN Jialin, ZHU Lin, SU Yu, CHEN Zekai, CHEN Ziqi, ZHANG Zhuofan. Research on the Improvement Effect of Exercise Modes on the Executive Function of Overweight or Obese Children or Adolescents: a Network Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(27): 3422-3431. |
[2] | LI Hao, LI Jiangtao, LIU Dan, WANG Jianjun. Efficacy and Safety of Belimumab, Anifrolumab, and Telitacicept on the Treatment of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: a Network Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(23): 2924-2933. |
[3] | ADILI Tuersun, CHENG Gang. Meta-analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Finerenone in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetic Nephropathy [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(21): 2686-2691. |
[4] | MA Panpan, WANG Sijing, YOU Na, DING Dafa, LU Yibing. Efficacy and Safety of Danuglipron and Orforglipron in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: a Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(21): 2679-2685. |
[5] | ZHU Shengjie, DIAO Huaqiong, HANG Xiaoyi, SUN Wenjun. Network Meta-analysis of Different Traditional Chinese Medicine Injections for the Treatment of Posterior Circulatory Ischemic Vertigo [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(14): 1795-1808. |
[6] | LIU Caiping, ZHANG Yanhua, TANG Jianpin, WANG Chengpeng, XUE Fengfeng, WANG Huijuan, LI Chuanwei, ZHANG Guangya, LI Huafang. Efficacy and Safety of Long-acting Risperidone Microspheres in the Maintenance Treatment of Schizophrenia [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(13): 1622-1627. |
[7] | CHI Xun, LIU Sisi, CHEN Qiao, HU Yue, WANG Weixian. The Suitability of Four Nutritional Screening Tools for Nutritional Screening in Patients with Cirrhosis: a Network Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(11): 1395-1402. |
[8] | GU Mingyu, QIN Tingting, QIAO Kun, BAI Xinyuan, WANG Yao, YANG Yutong, LI Xingming. A Network Meta-analysis of Primary Hypertension Management Patterns in China [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(10): 1265-1272. |
[9] | WANG Yiquan, CHEN Wanjia, LIU Wangyi, ZHANG Luyun, DENG Yueyi. The Prognosis of Stage 4 Chronic Kidney Diseasetreated with Fermented Cordyceps Sinensis Powder: Based on a Retrospective Cohort Study [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(09): 1084-1091. |
[10] | SONG Fenfen, LI Shengmian. Real-World Study of Camrelizumab-based Regimen for Locally Advanced and Metastatic Esophageal Cancer [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(07): 844-852. |
[11] | GUO Jia, CAO Chunmei, LIU Guochun, ZHENG Man, ZHU Ruihan, LONG Wei. Effects of Different Exercise Types on Sleep in Insomnia Patients: a Network Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2024, 27(35): 4376-4387. |
[12] | WANG Ting, WANG Haiyan, FU Wenjun. Effect of Chronic Atrophic Gastritis Treated with Different Acupuncture and Moxibustion Therapies: a Network Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2024, 27(23): 2913-2920. |
[13] | HUANG Tengjia, CAO Xi, CHEN Lei, LI Ziying, QIN Lihua. The Effectiveness of Non-pharmacological Treatment for Post-stroke Shoulder-hand Syndrome: a Network Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2024, 27(23): 2921-2930. |
[14] | ZHU Xiaodan, LI Yanhua, WANG Jinghua, CHEN Fayu. Study of the Effectiveness of General Practice Clinical Pathway for Medically Unexplained Disease Manifested by Low Back Pain [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2024, 27(19): 2352-2356. |
[15] | TAN Shufa, ZHANG Leichang, GAO Qiangqiang, OU Yan, HUANG Shuilan. Efficacy and Safety of Biologics and Small Molecule Drugs in the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis: a Network Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2024, 27(17): 2155-2166. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||