scholarly journals Recent Research Trends in Moxibustion Treatment in Korea

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Ju-Hyeon Lee ◽  
Doo-ree Hwang ◽  
Seung-Hyo Hong
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Korean Traditional Medicine ◽  
Study Type ◽  
Circulatory Diseases

A total of 1,235 studies were retrieved on June 23, 2019, from 3 databases. Selected 59 studies were evaluated by year of publication, study type, subject condition/disease, acupoint, standards for reporting interventions in clinical trials of moxibustion (STRICTOM), Cochrane risk of bias (RoB), and risk of bias assessment tool for non-randomized study (RoBANS). Most studies were conducted in 2011, after which the number of studies decreased. The most common study type was 25 case reports (CR), 16 uncontrolled clinical trials (UCT), 11 randomized controlled trials (RCT), and 7 controlled clinical trials (CCT). Moxibustion treatment was mainly used for musculoskeletal and circulatory diseases/conditions. A total of 83 acupoints were used, A-shi points being the most used. As for STRICTOM, an average of 7.4 items were satisfactory for UCT and CR without a control group, and an average of 9.4 items were satisfactory for RCT and CCT. RCT was assessed using the RoB, and many items were rated as uncertain. In this study, the need for RCT of moxibustion treatment in Korea was identified. The detailed description of study methods and results will provide evidence for the efficacy of moxibustion treatment in preventive and therapeutic aspects of Korean traditional medicine.

scholarly journals Dental Composite Restorations Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 707-738
Author(s):  
Abdulmohsen Al Rabiah ◽  
Alamri Zahrah ◽  
Tuwaym Malath ◽  
Al Daghri Ebtihal ◽  
Al Suhaibani Daniyah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Prospective Cohort ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Dental Composite ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Bias Assessment

Background: Controversy exists in the literature regarding the most optimal repair procedure for improving the adhesion between the repair resin and the existing resin composite materials. Hence the aim of the present study was to do a systematic review and to analyze the adhesion potential of resin-based composites to similar and dissimilar composites and aimed to determine the possible dominant factors affecting the bond strength results. Materials & Methods: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort design were searched through electronic databases including MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) until July 2020 that compared different methods of composite restoration repair and a minimum mean follow-up time of 1 year. There were no restrictions on a particular treatment indication or outcome measures. Two authors independently conducted screening, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction of eligible trials in duplicate. We applied the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool to consider the risk of bias. Results: We identified 10 articles; two of them were RCTs, and eight prospective cohort studies. There were 530 participants, with 990 teeth, dealing with resin-based composite (RBC) restorations. The intervention of defective restorations ranged from minimal intervention to total restoration replacement. The evaluation criteria were also varied with different evaluation protocols. The low number and heterogeneity of RCTs did not allow for meta-analyses. Conclusions: Although different repair protocols are mentioned in the literature according to the included studies, an appropriate and definitive conclusion can't be drawn. However, it seems repairs versus replacements should be considered as the first line of treatment when all factors lead to repair rather than replacement. Further randomized controlled trials with high methodological quality need to be conducted in order to establish evidence-based recommendations, particularly for RBC repair.

scholarly journals Acupuncture combined with medication for opioid use disorder in adults: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e034554
Author(s):  
Zhihan Chen ◽  
Rui Wang ◽  
Min Zhang ◽  
Yitong Wang ◽  
Yulan Ren
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Opioid Use Disorder ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Assess Quality ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionOpioid use disorder (OUD) is a worldwide health problem. Clinical trials indicated that acupuncture combined with medication is effective in OUD, however, there are different conclusions presented by previous trials. This study is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture combined with medication in OUD.Methods and analysisPubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertation and Theses, AMED, OpenGrey, Clinicaltrials.gov and who.int/trialsearch will be searched in September 2019 without a language restriction. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs which included participants with OUD receiving acupuncture therapy combined with medication versus control group will be included in this study. Two reviewers will independently screen studies, extract data, assess risk of bias by the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool and assess quality of evidence by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Any disagreements will be arbitrated by the third reviewer. Data synthesis and analysis will be conducted by using RevMan V.5.3. Subgroup analyses, sensitivity analysis, meta-regression and reporting bias assessment will be conducted if necessary and appropriate.Ethics and disseminationOn account of the nature of this systematic review and meta-analysis, ethical approval is not required. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019123436.

scholarly journals Positional and dimensional temporomandibular joint changes after correction of posterior crossbite in growing patients:A systematic review

2018 ◽  
Vol 88 (5) ◽  
pp. 638-648 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed T. Ellabban ◽  
Ahmed I. Abdul-Aziz ◽  
Mona M. Salah Fayed ◽  
Mai H. AboulFotouh ◽  
Ehab S. Elkattan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Temporomandibular Joint ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
The Other ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Maxillary Expansion ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Posterior Crossbite ◽  
Manual Search ◽  
Spontaneous Correction

ABSTRACT Objective: To elucidate the positional and dimensional temporomandibular joint (TMJ) changes after correction of posterior crossbite in growing patients. Materials and Methods: A systematic unrestricted search was done in six databases until June 27, 2017. A manual search in the reference lists of the included studies and gray literature was also performed. The eligibility criteria included randomized controlled trials and prospective nonrandomized controlled clinical trials and a sample of growing subjects with posterior crossbite that required maxillary expansion. Risk of bias assessment was performed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool. The literature search, study inclusion, risk of bias assessment, evaluation of quality of evidence (GRADE), and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. Results: Only two articles were finally eligible to be included in the qualitative analysis. Both studies were RCTs and were assessed as having unclear risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not possible since one study used cone-beam computed tomography as an assessment tool while the other used ultrasonography. One study reported significant reduction in the condylar positional difference between centric and habitual occlusion in the treatment group, while no spontaneous correction of condylar asymmetric position occurred in the control group. The other study reported minor changes of condylar position in both treatment and control groups. Conclusions: The current available data provide insufficient and weak evidence to form a solid and firm conclusion. There is poor, very low-quality evidence regarding the positional and dimensional effects of posterior crossbite correction on the TMJs.

scholarly journals Effects of Composite Attachments on Orthodontic Clear Aligners Therapy: A Systematic Review

Materials ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 533
Author(s):  
Riccardo Nucera ◽  
Carolina Dolci ◽  
Angela Mirea Bellocchio ◽  
Stefania Costa ◽  
Serena Barbera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Bodily Movement ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Medium Risk ◽  
Clear Aligner ◽  
Anterior Root

This systematic review aims to highlight the differences between different clear aligner therapies that differ in the presence of attachments or in attachment configuration. Eight electronic databases were searched up to March 2020. Two authors independently proceeded to study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. The analysis of the results was carried out examining six groups of movements (mesio-distal tipping/bodily movement; anterior bucco-lingual tipping/root torque; posterior bucco-lingual tipping/expansion; intrusion; extrusion; rotation). Five clinical trials were selected and all of them showed a medium risk of bias. Literature showed that attachments mostly increase the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment with clear aligners, improving anterior root torque, rotation, and mesio-distal (M-D) movement; they are also important to increase posterior anchorage. However, some articles showed contradictory or not statistically significant results. Attachments also seem to improve intrusion, but the evidence about this movement, as well as extrusion, is lacking. No studies evaluated posterior bucco-lingual tipping/expansion. Further clinical trials are strongly suggested to clarify the influence of attachments and their number, size, shape, and position on each orthodontic movement.

scholarly journals The Effect of Ginkgo Biloba Dropping Pills on Hemorheology and Blood Lipid: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Hong Chen ◽  
Cihang Zhou ◽  
Mingwei Yu ◽  
Shuo Feng ◽  
Yunfei Ma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Ginkgo Biloba ◽  
Whole Blood ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Blood Lipid ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group

Objective. A systematic review of randomized trials was performed to assess the effect of Ginkgo Biloba Dropping Pills (GBDP) on clinical hemorheology and blood lipid indicators. Methods. The data of the Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Clinical Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the Wanfang database, the VIP database, and the Sinomed were retrieved by computers from the establishment of the database to March 27, 2018, and screened and extracted by two researchers according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Cochrane 5.0 recommended bias risk assessment tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included literature, and Revman 5.3 software were used for meta-analysis. Results. 10 literatures were finally selected in accordance with the standard. There were a total of 1201 cases, 608 cases in ginkgo biloba dropping pill group and 593 in routine treatment group. Compared with control group, GBDP significantly improved plasma viscosity [N=383, RR= - 0.45, 95%CI=(-0.86,-0.04), P=0.03], whole blood high shear [N=232, RR= - 0.92,95%CI=(-1.69, -0.16), P =0.02], whole blood low shear [N = 232, RR = - 2.22, 95% CI = (- 3.74, -0.7), P = 0.004], red blood cell specific volume [N =132, RR = - 4.55, 95% CI = (- 6.36, 2.73), P < 0.000 01], fibrinogen [N=243, RR=-0.60,95%CI=(-0.82,-0.39), P<0.00001], triglyceride [N=912, RR=-0.60,95%CI=(-1.12, -0.07), P =0.03], cholesterol [N=912, RR=-0.97,95%CI=(-1.41, -0.52), P <0.0001], low-density cholesterol [N=1100, RR=-0.72,95%CI=(-1.19, -0.25), P =0.003], and sensitivity analysis before and after of high-density cholesterol [N=1020, RR=0.08,95%CI=(-0.17,0.34), P =0.52] and [N=683, RR=0.27,95%CI=(0.13,0.42), P =0.0003]. And seven adverse reactions were reported. Conclusion. GBDP can improve hemorheology indexes, which is to reduce the blood viscosity, to improve blood lipid status, and to prevent and treat cardiocerebral and renal vascular diseases to a certain extent, with slight clinical adverse reactions. But our results were based on small amount of clinical studies with poor quality and insufficient evidence, which may lead to low credibility of conclusions. Therefore, more large-sample, multiple-center, randomized controlled clinical trials and related mechanisms researches are needed to obtain better clinical trial evidence in order to verify the further effectiveness and safety of GBDP on hemorheology.

scholarly journals Prognostic models for predicting in-hospital paediatric mortality in resource-limited countries: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e035045
Author(s):  
Morris Ogero ◽  
Rachel Jelagat Sarguta ◽  
Lucas Malla ◽  
Jalemba Aluvaala ◽  
Ambrose Agweyu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Model Development ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Prognostic Models ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Bias Assessment

ObjectivesTo identify and appraise the methodological rigour of multivariable prognostic models predicting in-hospital paediatric mortality in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).DesignSystematic review of peer-reviewed journals.Data sourcesMEDLINE, CINAHL, Google Scholar and Web of Science electronic databases since inception to August 2019.Eligibility criteriaWe included model development studies predicting in-hospital paediatric mortality in LMIC.Data extraction and synthesisThis systematic review followed the Checklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies framework. The risk of bias assessment was conducted using Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). No quantitative summary was conducted due to substantial heterogeneity that was observed after assessing the studies included.ResultsOur search strategy identified a total of 4054 unique articles. Among these, 3545 articles were excluded after review of titles and abstracts as they covered non-relevant topics. Full texts of 509 articles were screened for eligibility, of which 15 studies reporting 21 models met the eligibility criteria. Based on the PROBAST tool, risk of bias was assessed in four domains; participant, predictors, outcome and analyses. The domain of statistical analyses was the main area of concern where none of the included models was judged to be of low risk of bias.ConclusionThis review identified 21 models predicting in-hospital paediatric mortality in LMIC. However, most reports characterising these models are of poor quality when judged against recent reporting standards due to a high risk of bias. Future studies should adhere to standardised methodological criteria and progress from identifying new risk scores to validating or adapting existing scores.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018088599.

scholarly journals RobotReviewer: evaluation of a system for automatically assessing bias in clinical trials

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 193-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iain J Marshall ◽  
Joël Kuiper ◽  
Byron C Wallace
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Reasonable Accuracy ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Unclear Risk

Abstract Objective To develop and evaluate RobotReviewer, a machine learning (ML) system that automatically assesses bias in clinical trials. From a (PDF-formatted) trial report, the system should determine risks of bias for the domains defined by the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool, and extract supporting text for these judgments. Methods We algorithmically annotated 12,808 trial PDFs using data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). Trials were labeled as being at low or high/unclear risk of bias for each domain, and sentences were labeled as being informative or not. This dataset was used to train a multi-task ML model. We estimated the accuracy of ML judgments versus humans by comparing trials with two or more independent RoB assessments in the CDSR. Twenty blinded experienced reviewers rated the relevance of supporting text, comparing ML output with equivalent (human-extracted) text from the CDSR. Results By retrieving the top 3 candidate sentences per document (top3 recall), the best ML text was rated more relevant than text from the CDSR, but not significantly (60.4% ML text rated ‘highly relevant' v 56.5% of text from reviews; difference +3.9%, [−3.2% to +10.9%]). Model RoB judgments were less accurate than those from published reviews, though the difference was &lt;10% (overall accuracy 71.0% with ML v 78.3% with CDSR). Conclusion Risk of bias assessment may be automated with reasonable accuracy. Automatically identified text supporting bias assessment is of equal quality to the manually identified text in the CDSR. This technology could substantially reduce reviewer workload and expedite evidence syntheses.

scholarly journals Toolkit of methodological resources to conduct systematic reviews

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 82
Author(s):  
Marta Roqué ◽  
Laura Martínez-García ◽  
Ivan Solà ◽  
Pablo Alonso-Coello ◽  
Xavier Bonfill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Stage Of Development ◽  
Model Study ◽  
Question Development

Background: Systematic reviews (SR) can be classified by type depending on the research question they are based on. This work identifies and describes the most relevant methodological resources to conduct high-quality reviews that answer clinical questions regarding prevalence, prognosis, diagnostic accuracy and efficacy of interventions. Methods: Methodological resources have been identified from literature searches and consulting guidelines from institutions that develop SRs. The selected resources are organized by type of SR, and stage of development of the review (formulation of the research question, development of the protocol, literature search, risk of bias assessment, synthesis of findings, assessment of the quality of evidence, and report of SR results and conclusions). Results: Although the different types of SRs are developed following the same steps, each SR type requires specific methods, differing in characteristics and complexity. The extent of methodological development varies by type of SR, with more solid guidelines available for diagnostic accuracy and efficacy of interventions SRs. This methodological toolkit describes the most up-to-date risk of bias instruments: Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool and Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) for prognostic SRs, Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (QUADAS-2) for diagnostic accuracy SRs, Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB-2) and Risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions studies tool (ROBINS-I) for efficacy of interventions SRs, as well as the latest developments on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Conclusions: This structured compilation of the best methodological resources for each type of SR may prove to be a very useful tool for those researchers that wish to develop SRs or conduct methodological research works on SRs.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Qingfei Paidu Decoction for Treating COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qi Wang ◽  
Hongfei Zhu ◽  
Mengting Li ◽  
Yafei Liu ◽  
Honghao Lai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Conventional Treatment ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Duration Of Symptoms

Background: Qingfei Paidu decoction (QFPD) has been widely used in treating COVID-19 in China. However, there is still a lack of comprehensive and systematic evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of QFPD. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of QFPD in patients with COVID-19.Methods: We searched seven databases up to 5 March 2021. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data of interest, and assessed risk of bias. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias of cohort and non-randomized trials. The “Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies With No Control Group” was adopted for controlled pre–post studies. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. We carried out a random effect meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3. For outcomes that could not be meta-analyzed, we performed a descriptive analysis.Results: We identified 16 studies with 11,237 patients, including one RCT, six non-randomized trials, two cohort studies, and seven pre–post studies. The certainty of evidence was low to very low because of the observational study design. QFPD combined with conventional treatment might decrease the time for nucleic acid conversion (MD = −4.78 days, 95% CI: −5.79 to −3.77), shorten the length of hospital stay (MD = −7.95 days, 95% CI: −14.66 to −1.24), shorten the duration of symptoms recovery of fever (MD = −1.51 days, 95% CI: −1.92 to −1.09), cough (MD = −1.64 days, 95% CI: −1.91 to −1.36) and chest CT (MD = −2.23 days, 95% CI: −2.46 to −2.00), improve the overall traditional Chinese medicine symptom scores (MD = 41.58 scores, 95% CI: 32.67 to 50.49), and change the laboratory indexes, such as WBC, AST, and CRP.Conclusion: QFPD combined with conventional treatment might be effective for patients with COVID-19. No serious adverse reactions related to QFPD were observed. Further high-quality studies are still needed in the future.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document