中药治疗癌痛临床文献41篇的分析

表1 详细评估情况

评估内容	所占比例	所在文献
有中文摘要	32/391(82.1%)	7-10, 12-23, 25-28, 30-36, 39-41, 43, 44
目的, 方法, 结果, 结论齐全	36/41(87.8%)	7-28, 30-36, 39-41, 43, 44, 46, 47
有关键词	38/41(92.7%)	7-28, 30-37, 39-44, 46, 47
有英文摘要	10/41(24.4%)	17, 20, 21, 23, 33, 40, 41, 43, 46, 47
提及随机(除自身对照, 文献34)	38/40(95.0%)	7-23, 26-33, 35-47
提及如何入组(除自身对照, 文献34)	13/40(32.5%)	11, 15, 16, 17, 22, 29, 31, 38, 40, 44-47
有诊断标准	36/41(87.8%)	7-17, 19-34, 37, 38-41, 43, 45-47
有入选标准	24/41(58.5%)	8-11, 15-17, 19-24, 27-31, 34, 37, 40, 43, 46, 47
有排除标准	10/41(24.4%)	8, 11, 15, 17, 34, 37, 40, 41, 46
使用安慰剂对照	4/41(9.8 %)	20, 23, 29, 36
使用阳性对照, 同时药物或治疗方	29/41(70.7%)	7-9, 11, 13-19, 21-23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 37-47
法明确, 剂量明确
写明疼痛强度的评价方法	38/41(92.7%)
VRS(主诉疼痛的程度分级法)	18/41(43.9%)	7-10, 12-15, 17, 19, 21-23, 28, 29, 37, 43, 45
NRS(数字分级法)	7/41(17.1%)	11, 17, 24, 34, 38, 40, 41
VAS(视觉模拟法)	6/41(14.6%)	18, 35, 36, 42, 44, 46
其他方法	7/41(17.1%)	16, 20, 25, 32, 39, 45, 47
提及两组治疗前的基本信息, 包括病种分布, 疼痛程度和部位, 以及性别、年龄等资料比较(除自身对照, 文献34)	28/40(70.0%)	7-13, 15-17, 19-23, 28-31, 33, 35, 37, 40-42, 44-47
自制制剂(外用药或汤药)有明确的药物组成和剂量	8篇2	10, 15, 20, 36, 38, 39, 42, 46
提及疗效标准, 且写明依据	25/41(61.0%)	7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18-21, 23-25, 28-30, 32, 34, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44-47
提及疼痛治疗有效率	41/41(100.0%)	7-47
评价止痛作用起始时间	17/41(41.5%)	7, 9, 11, 16, 20, 21, 23, 25, 29, 34-36, 38, 40, 41, 45, 46
评价止痛作用持续时间	16/41(39.0%)	7, 11, 15-17, 20, 22, 25, 29, 34, 35, 38, 40, 41, 43, 46
有不良反应描述	29/41(70.7%)	7-11, 14, 15, 17-20, 22-24, 28-30, 32, 34-38, 40, 41, 43-47
疼痛观察的疗程
<1 wk	6/41(14.6%)	7, 15, 18, 22, 23, 40
1-2 wk	17/41(41.5%)	8-12, 16, 17, 20, 21, 34, 36, 38, 41-44, 46
>2 wk	14/41(34.1%)	13, 14, 19, 25-31, 33, 35, 37, 47
疗程不明确	4/41(9.8%)	24, 32, 39, 45
随访达半年, 但未报道提及随访方法	3/41(7.3%)	13, 14, 19
有统计方法, 但未提及样本量计算	41/41(100.0%)	7-47
有较完善的讨论, 体现了中医特色	21/41(51.2%)	7, 9-11, 15, 17, 19, 21, 28, 31, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41-47

¹41篇文献中有2篇发表在英文版期刊, 因此中文摘要计算时除外这2篇文献;

²仅就自制制剂和汤剂进行分析, 不包括成药类, 针剂类.