Efficacy and safety of Buyang Huanwu Decoction in patients with spinal cord injury: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Background: There has been growing interest in using the traditional Chinese herb Buyang Huanwu Decoction (BHD) as a potential treatment for spinal cord injury (SCI), owing to its long-used treatment for SCI in China. However, the efficacy and safety of BHD treatment for SCI remain widely skeptical. This meta-analysis aims to assess the safety and efficacy of BHD in managing SCI.

Method: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across several databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and Sinomed, up to January 1, 2024. Randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating the safety or efficacy of BHD in SCI treatment were included. The analysis focused on 8 critical endpoints: Patient-perceived total clinical effective rate, American Spinal Cord Injury Association (ASIA) sensory score, ASIA motor score, somatosensory evoked potential, motor evoked potential, visual analog scale pain score, Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, and adverse events.

Results: Thirteen studies comprising 815 participants met the inclusion criteria. No significant heterogeneity or publication bias was observed across the trials. The findings revealed significant improvements in the patient-perceived total clinical effective rate (OR = 3.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] = [2.43, 5.86]; P < .001), ASIA sensory score (mean difference [MD] = 8.22; 95% CI = [5.87, 10.56]; P < .001), ASIA motor score (MD = 7.16; 95% CI = [5.15, 9.18]; P < .001), somatosensory evoked potential (MD = 0.25; 95% CI = [0.03, 0.48]; P = .02), motor evoked potential (MD = 0.30; 95% CI = [0.14, 0.46]; P = .0002), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (MD = 1.99; 95% CI = [0.39, 3.58]; P = .01) in the BHD combination group compared to the control group. Additionally, there was a significant reduction in visual analog scale pain scores (MD = -0.81; 95% CI = [-1.52, -0.11]; P = .02) with BHD combination treatment, without a significant increase in adverse effects (OR = 0.68; 95% CI = [0.33, 1.41]; P = .3).

Conclusion: The current evidence suggests that BHD is effective and safe in treating SCI, warranting consideration as a complementary and alternative therapy. However, given the low methodological quality of the included studies, further rigorous research is warranted to validate these findings.

Figure 1.

Flow chart of study search and selection process.

Figure 2.

Risk of bias. (A) Risk of bias graph; (B) Risk of bias summary.

Figure 3.

Forest plot of comparison: BHD combination group vs control group. (A) Patient-perceived total clinical effective rate; (B) ASIA sensory score.

Figure 4.

Forest plot of comparison: BHD combination group vs control group. (A) ASIA motor score; (B) Somatosensory evoked potential; (C) Motor evoked potential.

Figure 5.

Forest plot of comparison: BHD combination group vs control group. (A) Visual analog scale score; (B) Japanese orthopedic association score; (C) Adverse events.

Figure 6.

Forest plot of comparison: BHD combination group vs control group. Total clinical effective rate as a marker of publication bias analysis.