In an Australian Government-funded study, Ried and Stuart of Adelaide University reviewed 8 RCT’s and 22 smaller studies involving a total of 1851 women with poor fertility. Meta-analysis of studies involving over 1000 women found roughly double the likelihood of achieving pregnancy with Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) than with western drug therapy. Over a 4 month period pregnancy rates were 60% for CHM verses 32% for drug treatment 9n=1005, odds ratio = 3.5, 95% confidence interval 2.3-5-2, p < 0.0001).
Other studies, involving over 600 women, compared CHM with IVF and revealed a mean pregnancy rate for CHM of 50% compared with 30% for IVF. The Adelaide study also provided evidence indicating that herbal treatment tailored to the specific traditional diagnosis of what was wrong with each individual’s reproductive health was a key factor in successful treatment.
The authors write: “Our meta-analyses suggest Traditional Chinese Herbal Medicine to be more effective in the treatment of female infertility achieving on average a 60% pregnancy rate over 4 months compared with 30% achieved with standard western drug treatment, or IVF over 12 months.”
It will be interesting to see if these findings provoke the usual backlash from the powerful medi-business lobby who, according to past form, will wheel out an “expert” to rubbish the findings and suggest that CHM treatment is unproven and dangerous.
The authors write: “Our meta-analyses suggest Traditional Chinese Herbal Medicine to be more effective in the treatment of female infertility achieving on average a 60% pregnancy rate over 4 months compared with 30% achieved with standard western drug treatment, or IVF over 12 months.”
It will be interesting to see if these findings provoke the usual backlash from the powerful medi-business lobby who, according to past form, will wheel out an “expert” to rubbish the findings and suggest that CHM treatment is unproven and dangerous.
Source - jcm.co.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment