Efficacy and Safety of Tanshinone for Chronic Kidney Disease: A Meta-Analysis

Objective. To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of tanshinone for chronic kidney disease (CKD). Methods. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the treatment of CKD using tanshinone were searched using 4 Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Value In Paper...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine 2020, Vol.2020 (2020), p.1-13
Main Authors: Gao, Kun, Liu, Chao-xia, Ding, Lei, Wang, Ying, Li, Li, Jiang, Shi-min, Zhou, Yao, Wu, Qi
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Angina pectoris
Chronic kidney failure
Clinical trials
Creatinine
Cystatin C
Diabetes
Drug therapy
Glomerular filtration rate
Hypertension
Kidney diseases
Kidneys
Meta-analysis
Patients
Safety
Side effects
Software
Systematic review
Urine
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective. To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of tanshinone for chronic kidney disease (CKD). Methods. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the treatment of CKD using tanshinone were searched using 4 Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Value In Paper (VIP), Wanfang, and Chinese Biology Medicine (CBM)) and 3 English databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Excerpta Medica Database (Embase)). The results included data on blood urine nitrogen (BUN), serum creatinine (Scr), glomerular filtration rate (GFR), 24 h urine protein, microalbuminuria (mALB), β2-macroglobulin (β2-MG), cystatin C (CysC), and safety events. The data were analyzed using Revman 5.3 and Stata 12.0 software. Results. Twenty-one studies were entered into this meta-analysis, which involved 1857 patients including 954 cases from the tanshinone treatment group and 903 cases from the control group. BUN levels in the tanshinone treatment group were significantly reduced compared with the control (standardized mean difference (SMD) = −0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.81 to −0.49, p
ISSN:1741-427X
1741-4288
DOI:10.1155/2020/3091814