ObjectiveTo retrieve and summarize the clinical studies on traditional Chinese medicine for heart failure prevention and treatment and to observe the distribution of evidence in the field of heart failure by using the method of evidence map.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases were searched from January 2000 to January 2020. Clinical studies, systematic reviews, guidelines, and clinical pathways related to traditional Chinese medicine for heart failure prevention and treatment were included, and the distribution characteristics of evidence were analyzed by using charts and text descriptions.ResultsA total of 8 580 papers were included, including 8 398 clinical studies (6 821 randomized controlled trials, 1 109 non-randomized controlled trials and 468 observational studies), 160 systematic reviews, and 22 guidelines, expert consensus and pathway studies. The number of clinical studies domestically and abroad showed an overall growth trend. The sample size was concentrated in 60- 100 cases. Coronary atherosclerotic heart disease was the most common comorbidity of heart failure. AMSTAR scores of systematic reviews were primarily 4 to 8. The results of high-quality randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews showed that traditional Chinese medicine combined with conventional Western medicine in the treatment of heart failure had certain advantages in improving heart function, quality of life and prognosis.ConclusionsHigh-quality clinical studies show that traditional Chinese medicine has certain advantages in the efficacy and safety of heart failure prevention and treatment; however, few studies have high methodological quality. In the future, multi-center, large sample size, and high methodological quality clinical studies are needed to further explore the efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine therapy in the field of heart failure.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines and expert consensus of chronic heart failure domestically and abroad.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, SinoMed, CNKI, WanFang Data, and VIP databases, and related websites were searched to collect guidelines and expert consensus on chronic heart failure published from January 1st, 2011 to December 31st, 2020. Four reviewers evaluated the methodological quality of the guidelines and expert consensus with the AGREE Ⅱ tool after the consistency evaluation training.ResultsA total of 17 studies were included (consisting of 11 English and 6 Chinese studies). The recommended levels were B level (recommend after modification) for 10 studies and C level (not recommended) for 7 studies. The AGREE Ⅱ standardized mean scores for various fields were 69.61% (scope and purpose), 34.20% (stakeholder involvement), 33.13% (rigor of development), 84.53% (clarity and presentation), 42.40% (applicability), and 37.09% (editorial independence). The methodological quality of English guidelines was generally high (level B for 10 and level C for 1), while all scores of Chinese guidelines or consensus in the 6 fields were mostly lower than the average (level C for 6).ConclusionsThe guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic heart failure requires further improvement in terms of stakeholder involvement and rigor of development. It should develop standards and methods to improve the quality for Chinese guidelines and expert consensus to better serve clinical practice.