中文摘要：

目的将系统地基于跟随消沉的症候群区别的哈密尔顿消沉规模(HAMD ) 考察综合的传统、西方的药治疗的好处。我们为消沉的处理在综合的传统、西方的药上在六个英语、中国的电子数据库找了使随机化的临床的试用(RCT ) 的方法。二个作者提取了数据并且独立地估计了试用质量。RevMan 5 软件被用于数据分析，效果估计与 95% 信心间隔(CI ) 作为加权的吝啬的差别(WMD ) 介绍了。结果有 576 个参加者的七 RCT 为这评论被识别。所有试用为元分析是合格的并且作为不清楚被评估或有偏爱的风险。元分析证明治疗的效果由 HAMD 代表了，与独自一个的、综合的传统、西方的药能基于症候群区别改进的西方的药相比[WMD=2.39， CI (2.96,1.83 ) ， Z=8.29， P < 0.00001 ] 。没有与综合的传统、西方的药有关的报导严肃的不利效果在这些试用的基于的治疗。结论综合的传统、西方的药基于治疗因为消沉的症候群区别显著地改进了 HAMD，说明那联合从综合的传统、西方的药的治疗因为消沉的处理独自比西方的药好。然而，进一步大的、严厉地设计的试用由于在在这研究包括的试用看见的不够的方法学的严酷被保证。

英文摘要：

OBJECTIVE：To systematically review the benefits of integrated traditional and Western medicine therapies based on the Hamilton depression scale（HAMD） following syndrome differentiation of depression.METHODS：We searched six English and Chinese electronic databases for randomized clinical trials（RCTs） on integrated traditional and Western medicine for treatment of depression.Two authors extracted data and independently assessed the trial quality.RevMan 5 software was used for data analyses with an effect estimate presented as weighted mean difference（WMD） with a 95% confidence interval（CI）.RESULTS：Seven RCTs with 576 participants were identified for this review.All trials were eligible for the meta-analysis and were evaluated as unclear or having a risk of bias.Meta-analysis showed,compared with Western medicine alone,integrated traditional and Western medicine based on syndrome differentiation could improve the effect of treatment represented by the HAMD [WMD=-2.39,CI（-2.96,-1.83）,Z=8.29,P0.00001].There were no reported serious adverse effects that were related to integrated traditional and Western medicine based therapies in these trials.CONCLUSIONS：Integrated traditional and Western medicine based therapies for the syndrome differentiation of depression significantly improved the HAMD,illustrating that combining therapies from integrated traditional and Western medicine for treatment of depression is better than Western medicine alone.However,further large,rigorously designed trials are warranted due to the insufficient methodological rigor seen in the trials included in this study.