Efficacy and safety of Weifuchun tablet for chronic atrophic gastritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.xlsx

The data was related to the research" Efficacy and safety of Weifuchun tablet for chronic atrophic gastritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis". Fifteen RCTs were enrolled in this meta-analysis. <strong>Search strategy</strong> This study was enrolled at PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022365703; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero). Databases, including Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang database, Chinese Scientific Journals Database (VIP) and Chinese Biological Medical Database (CBM), were searched up their inception to October 5, 2022. In addition, we also searched the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry and ClinicalTrials.gov. Two researchers conducted and screened all the citations independently. We conducted a retrieval combined Mesh terms with free words, and a complete list of retrieval strategies for PubMed was described below: #1. gastritis, atrophic [Mesh Terms] #2. ((((((' Atrophic Gastriti* '[Title/Abstract]) OR ('precancerous conditions'[Title/Abstract])) OR (Metaplasia [Title/Abstract])) OR ('Gastric premalignant'[Title/Abstract])) OR ('Intestin* metaplasia'[Title/Abstract])) OR (Dysplasia [Title/Abstract])) OR ('gastric atrophy'[Title/Abstract]) #3. (Weifuchun [Title/Abstract]) OR (WFC[Title/Abstract]) #4. #1 OR #2 #5. #4 AND #3 #6. (((('Randomized Controlled Trial'[Publication Type]) OR ('Controlled Clinical Trial'[Publication Type])) OR (Randomized [Title/Abstract])) OR (Placebo [Title/Abstract])) OR (Randomly [Title/Abstract]) #7. #5 AND #6 <strong>Selection criteria</strong> Retrieved results were imported into EndNote X9.1. Two researchers (Longhua Wang and Ping Li) independently evaluated the qualification of retrieval studies according to inclusion criteria. A preliminary screening was performed by browsing titles and abstracts independently. Based on browsing titles and abstracts, studies including case reports, experience introductions, reviews, animal studies, irrelevant to our topic and non-randomized controlled trials were excluded. We also excluded studies combined WFC with other therapies. A next step screening was conducted and the study was temporarily adopted if there was no clear exclusion information. Two researchers(Longhua Wang and Ping Li)independently performed a next step screening by browsing a full text. Based on reading the full article, we strictly screened the selected studies according to inclusion criteria. If divergences existed, we would discuss with a third researcher (Xia Ding). Studies were included according to inclusion criteria as follows. 1) The studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in Chinese or English before October 5, 2022, and no restriction on the implementation of blinding. 2) The study subjects were adult patients with CAG diagnosed by endoscopy and pathology. The gender and source of the cases were not limited. 3) The experiment group was treated with Weifuchun tablet alone, but interventions of control group included western medicine, Chinese herbal compound, Chinese patent drugs, or placebo.4) Duration of course was no fewer than 3 months. <strong>Data extraction and quality assessment</strong> Data extraction was done by two investigators independently (Longhua Wang and Lan Li), containing literature title, the first author, date of publication, study population and baseline data consistency, sample size, intervention measures, duration, outcome evaluation indicators and results, follow-up time and adverse drug events. If divergences existed, we would discuss with a third researcher (Shuying Ru). Methodological quality of RCTs was assessed by Cochrane risk of bias tool, containing seven criteria (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other bias). Two researchers (Longhua Wang and Fenglei Wang) conducted methodological quality assessment standalone, and given a bias assessment graded low, high or unknown risk. Inconsistencies were resolved by discussion with all researchers. <br>