Methods |
|
Participants |
Country: China
Setting: inpatients; single centre, Chinese‐Western Integrative Medicine Hospital, Wuchang, China
Inclusion criteria: patients undergoing CAPD and diagnosed as spleen‐kidney yang deficiency syndrome in traditional Chinese medicine
Number: treatment group (30); control group (30)
Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (57.2 ± 8.2); control group (56.9 ± 7.9)
Sex (M/F): 29/31
Exclusion criteria: pregnancy; gastrointestinal bleeding or electrolyte imbalance as a complication CAPD; severely impaired heart function
|
Interventions |
Treatment group
Control group
Duration of intervention: 7 to 10 days |
Outcomes |
-
GI symptom scores (anorexia, nausea/vomiting, bloating and watery stools)
Measured by severity of symptoms. This score consisted of 4 separate components including anorexia, nausea/vomiting, bloating and watery stools. Severity of these 4 components was assessed as follows: none (0), mild (1), moderate (2) and severe (3)
-
Overall improvement rates
Calculated as follows: complete recovery (improvement of clinical symptoms and recovery of baseline symptoms more than 95%), improvement (improvement of clinical symptoms and recovery of baseline symptoms > 70% and < 95%), slight improvement (improvement of clinical symptoms and recovery of baseline symptoms more than 30% but less than 70%) and no improvement (no improvement of clinical symptoms and recovery of baseline symptoms < 30%)
Biological parameters (total Kt/V, residual kidney function (Kt/V), total CrCl, residual kidney function CrCl, dialysate/plasma ratio of creatinine, peritoneal dialysate volume, urinary volume, SCr, carbon dioxide combining power, albumin, K+, Hb)
Time points measured (or reported) in the study: post‐treatment (10 days) |
Notes |
The number of patients in subjective outcomes (i.e., total symptom scores and symptom response rates) was substantially different from those randomised. Thus, we did not analyse those outcomes in the review
|
Risk of bias |
Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
Not reported |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
Not reported |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Unable to be blinded (open‐label study) |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes |
Unclear risk |
Not reported |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Total number of assessed patients exceeds the total number of included patients in each group |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Unclear risk |
No study protocol available |
Other bias |
Low risk |
Study appears free of other biases |