Cochrane · systematic review · CD007939
Single herbal medicine for diabetic retinopathy
Zhang, HW, Zhang, H, Grant, SJ, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
Eyes and VisionAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
6
current version
GRADE rated
5
No studies
1
Included studies
NR
No studies 1 · 16.7%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 3 · 50%Low 2 · 33.3%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Single herb plus conventional intervention versus conventional intervention for diabetic retinopathy
Population: people with diabetic retinopathy
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Progression of retinopathy Single herb plus conventional intervention vs conventional intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Visual acuity (gain of ≥ 2 lines) (end of treatment) Single herb plus conventional intervention vs conventional intervention | RR 1.26 [1.08, 1.48] | 5 studies · 541 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Reduction in microaneurysms Single herb plus conventional intervention vs conventional intervention | RR 17.9 [1.05, 305.26] | 1 study · 146 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Observations in retina: reduction in haemorrhages Single herb plus conventional intervention vs conventional intervention | RR 26.3 [1.59, 437.56] | 1 study · 146 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
HbA1c (%) Single herb plus conventional intervention vs conventional intervention | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 215 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse outcomes Single herb plus conventional intervention vs conventional intervention | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 687 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |