***TASK***
the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***INPUT***
the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature

***OUTPUT***
the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***DOCUMENTATION***

***EXAMPLES***

Input: We only found studies (47 studies, 3581 participants) for 18 of the 29 eligible TCHMs as defined by our inclusion criteria. All were superiority trials conducted in China between 1997 and 2013, with most employing a two-arm parallel design with sample sizes ranging from 26 to 240 and a median treatment duration of 12 weeks (range: 2 to 24 weeks). We found that reporting and trial methodology were generally poor; in particular, there was a lack of information on randomisation, an absence of blinding of participants and outcome assessors and incomplete reporting of adverse events (AEs). None of the 30 trials published from 2007 onwards adopted the CONSORT recommendations for reporting RCTs of herbal interventions. We found seven TCHMs which each had potentially large benefits in studies estimating the TCHM versus 'no treatment' effect and in studies estimating the TCHM versus the WM effect. Two TCHMs (NaoXinTong and TongXinLuo) were common to both groups. Three of these TCHMs – Nao XinTong, NaoMaiTai and TongXinLuo – had the strongest evidence to justify further research. Two TCHMs (NaoMaiTai and TongXinLuo) had a 5% or more increased risk of AEs compared to the 'no Treatment' control, but the quality of this evidence was poor. We found moderate- to very low-quality evidence of benefit and harm of TCHMs for VaD. Methodological inadequacies need to be addressed by better conducted and reported trials. We identified NaoMaiTai, NaoXinTong and TongXinLuo as warranting special research priority.
Output:

We included 47 trials with 3581 participants of 18 TCHMs in this review. All were conducted in mainland China between 1997 and 2013 with participant numbers ranging from 26 to 240 and an average study duration of 12 weeks. There were significant problems with the methods in many of the trials, particularly with how participants were allocated to treatments, how outcomes were measured and how thoroughly harmful effects were monitored. For these and other reasons, we rated the overall quality of the evidence as variable, ranging from moderate to very low. This means that we are uncertain, and often very uncertain, about the accuracy of the results. Despite these reservations, we found seven TCHMs which each had potentially large benefits in studies comparing TCHMs to no treatment or Western Medicine. Three of these – Nao XinTong, NaoMaiTai and TongXinLuo – had the strongest evidence to justify further research. We found that the risk of harmful effects was at least 5% higher than the risk for participants in the control group for NaoMaiTai and TongXinLuo, but the quality of this evidence was poor. We think further research of some TCHMs for vascular dementia is justified, but it is important that the quality of trial conduct and reporting be improved by adhering to published best-practice standards.