Table 3.
Summary of findings in this systematic review.
| Herbal medicines compared to controls for metabolic syndrome | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient or population: metabolic syndrome | ||||||
| Setting: outpatient and inpatient | ||||||
| Intervention: herbal medicines | ||||||
| Comparison: no treatment, placebo, and western medicines | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects∗ (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (grade) | Comments | |
| Risk with control | Risk with intervention | |||||
|
| ||||||
| Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) | The mean FPG ranged across control groups from 87 to 260 mg/dL | The mean FPG in the intervention groups was 1.37 mg/dL lower (3.12 lower to 0.39 higher) | — | 980 (10 RCTs) | ⨁⨁◯◯ Low1 |
Lower score indicates less risk of diabetes mellitus. |
| Triglycerides (TG) | The mean TG ranged across control groups from 135 to 291 mg/dL | The mean TG in the intervention groups was 22.54 mg/dL lower (27.81 lower to 17.27 lower) | — | 980 (10 RCTs) | ⨁⨁⨁◯ Moderate2 |
Lower score indicates less risk of dyslipidemia. |
| Systolic blood pressure (SBP) | The mean SBP ranged across control groups from 122 to 150 mmHg | The mean SBP in the intervention groups was 6.76 mmHg lower (7.72 lower to 5.81 lower) | — | 1080 (11 RCTs) | ⨁⨁⨁◯ Moderate3 |
Lower score indicates less risk of hypertension. |
| Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) | The mean DBP ranged across control groups from 72 to 95 mmHg | The mean DBP in the intervention groups was 5.23 mmHg lower (4.77 lower to 4.68 lower) | — | 1080 (11 RCTs) | ⨁⨁⨁◯ Moderate3 |
Lower score indicates less risk of hypertension. |
| Waist circumference (WC) | See comment | — | 726 (7 RCTs) | ⨁⨁◯◯ Low |
Only 2 studies showed WC separated by sex, so risk could not be calculated. | |
| High density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) | See comment | — | 860 (9 RCTs) | ⨁⨁◯◯ Low |
No study showed HDL-C separated by sex, so risk could not be calculated. | |
∗The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: confidence interval; MD: mean difference.
1Heterogeneity and possible publication bias downgraded quality of the evidence.
2Sparse data downgraded quality of the evidence.
3Heterogeneity downgraded quality of the evidence.