scholarly journals An evidence mapping of systematic reviews and meta-analysis on traditional Chinese medicine for ulcerative colitis

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Xin Sun ◽  
Xiao Wang ◽  
Xing Liao ◽  
Jing Guo ◽  
Wen-Bin Hou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Route Of Administration ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Evidence Mapping

Abstract Background Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has been a proposed treatment option for ulcerative colitis (UC), however it has been difficult to understand the breadth and depth of evidence as various Chinese medicine therapies may produce effects differently. The aim of this evidence mapping is to visually understand the available evidence in the use of TCM in the treatment of UC, and to identify gaps in evidence to inform priorities of future research. Methods A systematic electronic literature search of six databases were performed to identify systematic reviews (SRs) on different Chinese medicine therapies in the treatment in UC. Methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed using AMSTAR 2. Results The mapping was based on 73 SRs, which included nine interventions that met eligibility criteria. The quality of the included SRs was very low. The diseases stages of patients with UC varied greatly, from active to remission, to non-acute outbreak, to not reported. The results mostly favored the method of intervention. Oral administration combined with enema was the most widely used route of administration in secondary research. Conclusion Based on the current evidence, the treatment of UC with TCM can only be recommended cautiously. A majority of included SRs did not report the location of the disease, the disease classification, and the route of administration of the intervention. Further research is needed on the effectiveness of Chinese medicine alone in the treatment of UC. The effectiveness of combined Chinese and conventional medicine combined with different routes of administration cannot be confirmed. Attention should be paid to the methodological quality of the systematic review. Unifies the outcome indicators used in the evaluation of effectiveness.

scholarly journals Nonpharmacological Interventions to Improve Depression, Anxiety, and Quality of Life (QoL) in People With Dementia: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naoko Kishita ◽  
Tamara Backhouse ◽  
Eneida Mioshi
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cognitive Stimulation ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
People With Dementia ◽  
Current Evidence Base

This overview aimed to systematically synthesize evidence from existing systematic reviews to signpost practitioners to the current evidence base on nonpharmacological interventions to improve depression, anxiety, and quality of life (QoL) in people with dementia and to discuss priorities for future research. The databases MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched in August 2017 with an updated search in January 2019. Fourteen systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of nonpharmacological interventions were identified. Dementia stage was rated moderate or severe in the majority of the reviews and type of dementia varied. Interventions reported to be effective were cognitive stimulation (QoL: standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.38), music-based therapeutic interventions (depression: SMD = −0.27, anxiety: SMD = −0.43, QoL: SMD = 0.32), and psychological treatments (mainly cognitive behavior therapy; depression: SMD = −0.22, anxiety: MD = −4.57). Although health-care professionals are recommended to continue using these approaches, future research needs to focus on the type and form of interventions that are most effective for different stages and types of dementia.

scholarly journals An Overview of Systematic Reviews of Danhong Injection for Ischemic Stroke

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui Wang ◽  
Shutian Ren ◽  
Chunxiang Liu ◽  
Xiaoxia Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Neurological Deficits ◽  
Systematic Evaluation ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Large Sample Size ◽  
Danhong Injection

Objective.This overview is to evaluate the current evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) of Danhong injection (DHI) for ischemic stroke (IS).Methods.SRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning DHI and IS were searched in six databases without language restrictions until September 2015. Assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) was used to evaluate the methodological quality of all included SRs.Result.A total of 8 articles were included. After the administration of DHI, clinical efficiency and neurological deficits score have marked advantages over those of the control group. However, the overall poor quality of meta-analysis and original studies affected the reliability of the results. Evaluation of methodological quality found that no one paper meets the requirements of all 11 items. The main flaws of the methodology quality included the following: not providing “a priori” design and reasonable objectives, duplicate study selection not given enough attention, performing an incomprehensive literature search, not paying attention to publication bias and other bias reports, characteristics of included studies not provided in detail, and ignoring clinical heterogeneity when performing meta-analyses.Conclusion.The current published SRs suggest DHI appears to be a safe and effective way for IS treatment in general. However, it lacks a high quality systematic evaluation and analysis. The quality of SRs should be improved. Further large sample-size and well-designed RCTs are needed.

scholarly journals Chinese Medicine as an Adjunctive Treatment for Gastric Cancer: Methodological Investigation of meta-Analyses and Evidence Map

2022 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cuncun Lu ◽  
Lixin Ke ◽  
Jieyun Li ◽  
Shuilin Wu ◽  
Lufang Feng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Adjunctive Treatment ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Large Sample Size ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Many meta-analyses (MAs) on Chinese medicine (CM) as an adjunctive treatment for gastric cancer have been published in recent years. However, the pooled evidence reported in MAs and their methodological quality remain unknown. Therefore, we designed a study to comprehensively evaluate and summarize the current evidence of CMs for gastric cancer in published MAs.Methods: A systematic search on MAs published in English from inception to 1st September 2021 was conducted in PubMed and Embase. The AMSTAR-2 tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included MAs, and the results of the quality assessment were visualized using the evidence mapping method. Stata 17/SE was used for statistical analysis (Registration number: INPLASY202190005).Results: A total of 20 MAs (16 pairwise and 4 network MAs) were included from 118 records. These MAs were published in 14 journals from 2013 to 2021, with the number of patients and trials ranging from 688 to 6,857, and from 10 to 85, respectively. A large number of CMs (e.g., AiDi, FuFangKuShen, and HuaChanSu) in combination with chemotherapy for gastric cancer were identified among the included MAs. According to the pooled results reported in MAs, when compared to chemotherapy alone, CMs in combination with chemotherapy not only improve various outcomes on efficacy (e.g., objective response rate, quality of life) but also reduce various adverse reactions (e.g., leucopenia, nausea and vomiting). Only 2 MAs were low in terms of the overall methodological quality, while the other 18 MAs were all critically low. The methodology was required to be advanced significantly, mainly involving: study protocol and registration, explanation for the inclusion of study design, list of excluded studies with justifications, adequate details of included studies, reporting on funding sources of primary studies, and evaluation of the potential impact of risk of bias. In addition, MAs that received funds support (β = 2.68; 95%CI: 0.40 to 4.96; p = 0.024) or were published in journals with higher impact factor (β = 2.81; 95%CI: 0.69 to 4.92; p = 0.012) had a higher score on the overall methodological quality in the univariate analysis, but the results were not statistically significant according to the multivariate analysis.Conclusion: Combining CMs with chemotherapy can potentially improve clinical outcomes and reduce the relevant adverse effects in patients with gastric cancer. However, the methodological quality of relevant MAs requires significant improvement, and the current evidence needs to be validated through multinational trials that are well-designed and have a large sample size.

scholarly journals Recommendations for the Design and Implementation of Virtual Reality for Acquired Brain Injury Rehabilitation: Systematic Review

10.2196/26344 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (7) ◽  
pp. e26344
Author(s):  
Sophie Brassel ◽  
Emma Power ◽  
Andrew Campbell ◽  
Melissa Brunner ◽  
Leanne Togher
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Virtual Reality ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Design And Implementation ◽  
Assessment And Treatment

Background Virtual reality (VR) is increasingly being used for the assessment and treatment of impairments arising from acquired brain injuries (ABIs) due to perceived benefits over traditional methods. However, no tailored options exist for the design and implementation of VR for ABI rehabilitation and, more specifically, traumatic brain injury (TBI) rehabilitation. In addition, the evidence base lacks systematic reviews of immersive VR use for TBI rehabilitation. Recommendations for this population are important because of the many complex and diverse impairments that individuals can experience. Objective This study aims to conduct a two-part systematic review to identify and synthesize existing recommendations for designing and implementing therapeutic VR for ABI rehabilitation, including TBI, and to identify current evidence for using immersive VR for TBI assessment and treatment and to map the degree to which this literature includes recommendations for VR design and implementation. Methods This review was guided by PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). A comprehensive search of 11 databases and gray literature was conducted in August 2019 and repeated in June 2020. Studies were included if they met relevant search terms, were peer-reviewed, were written in English, and were published between 2009 and 2020. Studies were reviewed to determine the level of evidence and methodological quality. For the first part, qualitative data were synthesized and categorized via meta-synthesis. For the second part, findings were analyzed and synthesized descriptively owing to the heterogeneity of data extracted from the included studies. Results In the first part, a total of 14 papers met the inclusion criteria. Recommendations for VR design and implementation were not specific to TBI but rather to stroke or ABI rehabilitation more broadly. The synthesis and analysis of data resulted in three key phases and nine categories of recommendations for designing and implementing VR for ABI rehabilitation. In the second part, 5 studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 2 studies reported on VR for assessment and three for treatment. Studies were varied in terms of therapeutic targets, VR tasks, and outcome measures. VR was used to assess or treat impairments in cognition, balance, and anxiety, with positive outcomes. However, the levels of evidence, methodological quality, and inclusion of recommendations for VR design and implementation were poor. Conclusions There is limited research on the use of immersive VR for TBI rehabilitation. Few studies have been conducted, and there is limited inclusion of recommendations for therapeutic VR design and implementation. Future research in ABI rehabilitation should consider a stepwise approach to VR development, from early co-design studies with end users to larger controlled trials. A list of recommendations is offered to provide guidance and a more consistent model to advance clinical research in this area.

scholarly journals Acupuncture for the Treatment of Tension-Type Headache: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinke Huang ◽  
Min Shen ◽  
Xiaohui Qin ◽  
Weichi Guo ◽  
Hui Li
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Tension Type Headache ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Type Headache ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Quality Evidence

Objectives. Because current evidence regarding the effectiveness of acupuncture for a tension-type headache (TTH) is controversial, we evaluated the reliability of the methodological quality and outcome measures of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) on acupuncture for TTH. Methods. We conducted a comprehensive literature search for SRs/MAs in major databases from the database’s inception to September 2019. The Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessments were used to assess the methodological quality of the included reviews and the quality of evidence, respectively. Results. Eight reviews were included in the analysis. The AMSTAR-2 assessment results showed that the methodological quality of all included reviews was critically low. Thirty-six outcome measures were included in these reviews. The GRADE results showed that 25 (25/36, 69.4%) outcomes provided low- or very low-quality evidence, four (4/36, 11.1%) provided moderate-quality evidence, and seven (7/36, 19.4%) provided high-quality evidence. Descriptive analysis results showed that acupuncture treatment for TTH reduced headache frequency and severity. Conclusions. Acupuncture appears to be an effective treatment modality for TTH, but the credibility of the results is limited owing to the generally low methodological quality and evidence quality in the included SRs/MAs.

scholarly journals Quality of Evidence Supporting the Role of Acupuncture for the Treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Jinke Huang ◽  
Mengxiong Lu ◽  
Yijun Zheng ◽  
Jinxin Ma ◽  
Xiangxue Ma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Irritable Bowel Syndrome ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Evidence Quality ◽  
Irritable Bowel ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objectives. To systematically collate, appraise, and synthesize the current evidence on acupuncture for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Methods. Systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) of acupuncture for IBS were searched in eight databases. For quality evaluation of the enrolled studies, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) was used for methodological quality, Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for reporting quality, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) for evidence quality. Results. Ten studies were included in our review. According to AMSTAR-2, only one study met all the criteria and was rated as high methodological quality, and the rest were rated as low or very low methodological quality. According to the PRISMA checklist, most of the items were fully reported, with the exception of Q5 (protocol and registration), Q8 (search), and Q27 (funding). With the GRADE system, no outcome measure was rated as high quality. Conclusions. Acupuncture may be a promising therapy for IBS. However, this conclusion must be treated with caution since the quality of SRs/MAs providing evidence is generally low.

scholarly journals Reporting and methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews needs to be improved: an evidence mapping

2021 ◽  
Vol 135 ◽  
pp. 17-28
Author(s):  
Yanfei Li ◽  
Liujiao Cao ◽  
Ziyao Zhang ◽  
Liangying Hou ◽  
Yu Qin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Evidence Mapping

Traditional Chinese Medicine Injection for Angina Pectoris: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (01) ◽  
pp. 37-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Luo ◽  
Qinghua Shang ◽  
Mei Han ◽  
Keji Chen ◽  
Hao Xu
Keyword(s):  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Angina Pectoris ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Potential Benefits

Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) injection is widely used to treat angina pectoris in China. This overview aims to systematically summarize the general characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) on TCM injection in treating angina, and assess the methodological and reporting quality of these reviews. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and four Chinese databases from inception until March 2013. Data were extracted according to a preset form. The AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists were used to explore the methodological quality and reporting characteristics of included reviews, respectively. All data analyses were descriptive. 46 SRs involving over 57,463 participants with angina reviewing 23 kinds of TCM injections were included. The main outcomes evaluated in the reviews were symptoms (43/46, 93.5%), surrogate outcomes (42/46, 91.3%) and adverse events (41/46, 87.0%). Few reviews evaluated endpoints (7/46, 15.2%) and quality of life (1/46, 2.2%). One third of the reviews (16/46, 34.8%) drew definitely positive conclusions while the others (30/46, 65.2%) suggested potential benefits mainly in symptoms, electrocardiogram and adverse events. With many serious flaws such as lack of a protocol and inappropriate data synthesis, the overall methodological and reporting quality of the reviews was limited. While many SRs of TCM injection on the treatment of angina suggested potential benefits or definitely positive effects, stakeholders should not accept the findings of these reviews uncritically due to the limited methodological and reporting quality. Future SRs should be appropriately conducted and reported according to international standards such as AMSTAR and PRISMA, rather than published in large numbers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document