scholarly journals The Efficacy of Moxibustion and Acupuncture Therapy for Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Protocol for an Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Chen ◽  
Jun Xiong ◽  
Lunbin Lu ◽  
Siyuan Zhu ◽  
Zhiying Zhong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Activity Index ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Complementary Therapy ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Methodological Guidelines

Abstract Background:Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) is a complex and progressive autoimmune inflammatory disease with a worldwide prevalence ranging up to 0.9%. Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traditional Chinese medicine alternative therapies, such as acupuncture or moxibustion, have demonstrated the effectiveness of moxibustion and acupuncture in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis. However, there is no relevant literature to comprehensively evaluate the evidence.The purpose of this overview is to synthesize and evaluate the reliability of evidence generated in the systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis of moxibustion and acupuncture as a primary or complementary therapy for patients with ankylosing spondylitis.Methods:PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure[CNKI], Chinese VIP Information, Wanfang Database, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database[CBM] were searched for systematic reviews and Meta-analysis that review the efficacy of acupuncture or moxibustion as the primary treatment for patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis. The literature published before August 2020 will be selected. Additionally, the relevant SRs and Meta-analyses that unpublished or ongoing will be searched in PROSPERO and INPLASY. The methodological guidelines for overviews will be used to reviews and extract data by two reviewers, and their will do it independently.Methodology quality will be analyzed by the AMSTAR-2 and the risk of bias by POBIS. For the included studies, we will adopt the following results as primary evaluation indicators: effective rate, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Bath AS Disease Activity Index (BASDAI). Reviewers will assess the certainty of evidence by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation(GRADE).Results: The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Conclusion: This overview will provide comprehensive evidence of moxibustion and acupuncture for patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis. Registration number: INPLASY202080035

scholarly journals The Effectiveness of Acupuncture and Moxibustion for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Protocol of an Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Genhua Tang ◽  
Jun Xiong ◽  
Siyuan Zhu ◽  
Zhiying Zhong ◽  
Jun Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Joint Damage ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽  
Acupuncture And Moxibustion ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background: Rheumatoid Arthritis(RA) is a common chronic disease with an annual incidence of 25 per 10000 of the population, which will result in severe joint damage,disability and death. It is strongly supported by systematic reviews (SRs) as part of the treatment of these patients. However, the evidence has not been methodically integrated. This overview aims to describe,synthesize,evaluate the reliability of evidence come from current systematic reviews of acupuncture and moxibustion therapy for RA.Methods: We will search for SRs and meta-analyses from Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, Wan-Fang Databases,China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Citation Information by National Institute of Informatics, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database(CBM),Chinese Scientific Journal Database(VIP Database). Additionally, we will search for the ongoing, unpublished, or recently completed SRs on the PROSPERO database. Two reviewers will assess those SRs, select data independently. Any disagreement will be resolved through discussion or arbitrated by the third author if necessary. The overview of SRs and meta-analysis will be reportedaccording to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)statement.Results: The results in this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.Conclusion: The conclusion of our study expects to provide extensive evidence from multiple meta-analysis and systematic reviews for patients with RA.INPLASY registration number:INPLASY202080031.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of Global Postural Reeducation in Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 2696
Author(s):  
Gloria Gonzalez-Medina ◽  
Veronica Perez-Cabezas ◽  
Antonio-Jesus Marin-Paz ◽  
Alejandro Galán-Mercant ◽  
Carmen Ruiz-Molinero ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Activity Index ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Disease Activity Index ◽  
Spinal Mobility ◽  
Electronic Library ◽  
Specific Population

The aim of this study was to determine the role of global postural reeducation for people with ankylosing spondylitis. We compared the effects of treatments on pain, dysfunction (using the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index), range of motion, and chest expansion in a specific population aged over 18 years old with ankylosing spondylitis. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statements. The search was conducted using the PubMed, Physiotherapy Database (PEDro), Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), and Web of Science (WoS) databases. Clinical trials and systematic reviews/meta-analysis were reviewed. Results: 154 studies were found. Finally, four were included. Conclusions: global postural reeducation is beneficial for ankylosing spondylitis, but no more so than other conventional treatments, except for spinal mobility, where Global Postural Reeducation demonstrated an advantage.

scholarly journals Endovascular treatment for symptomatic intracranial artery stenosis: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. e022359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tao Wang ◽  
Xue Wang ◽  
Kun Yang ◽  
Jing Zhang ◽  
Jichang Luo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Endovascular Treatment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Artery Stenosis ◽  
Intracranial Artery ◽  
Intracranial Artery Stenosis ◽  
Literature Database ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionAtherosclerotic intracranial artery stenosis (ICAS) is one of most common causes of stroke, which is the second-leading cause of death worldwide. Medical, surgical and endovascular therapy are three major treatments for ICAS. Currently, medical therapy is considered as the standard of care for most patients with ICAS, while extracranial to intracranial bypass is only used in rare situations. Balloon angioplasty alone, balloon-mounted stent and self-expanding stent, collectively called endovascular treatment, have shown promising potentials in treating specific subgroups of patients with symptomatic ICAS; however, their comparative safety and efficacy is still unclear. Therefore, a systematic review with network meta-analysis is needed to establish a hierarchy of these endovascular treatments.Methods and analysisThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols was followed to establish this protocol. The search will be limited to studies published from 1 January 2000 to the formal search date. Major databases including Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, conference proceedings and grey literature database will be searched for clinical studies comparing at least two interventions for patients with symptomatic ICAS. Primary outcomes include short-term and long-term mortality or stroke rate. Random effects pairwise and network meta-analyses of included studies will be performed on STATA (V.14, StataCorp, 2015). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve and mean rank will be calculated in order to establish a hierarchy of the endovascular treatments. Evaluation of the risk of bias, heterogeneity, consistency, transitivity and quality of evidence will follow the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not needed as systematic review is based on published studies. Study findings will be presented at international conferences and published on a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018084055; Pre-results.

Reviewing disease activity indices in spondyloarthritis from the gender perspective: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. jrheum.200967
Author(s):  
Mar Blasco-Blasco ◽  
Isabel Castrejón ◽  
Vega Jovaní ◽  
Eliseo Pascual ◽  
María Teresa Ruiz-Cantero
Keyword(s):  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Activity Index ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Disease Activity Index ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Inverse Variance ◽  
Peripheral Spondyloarthritis ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Activity Indices

Objective To determine whether the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) exhibited differences between women and men. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and other sources in English or Spanish from 01 January 1995 to 31 July 2020, to assess the differences according to sex in BASDAI and ASDAS. We performed a comparative analysis by sex using t-student test and mean difference by sex meta-analyses for BASDAI and ASDAS, using a random-effects model via the inverse-variance method. Results Forty-one studies included BASDAI (6,785 women/12,929 men) and 16 of them included ASDAS (2,046 women/4,403 men). Disease activity detected through BASDAI was significantly higher in women than in men (mean: 4.9 vs. 4.2, p=0.02), whereas ASDAS did not detect differences between sexes (mean: 2.8 women vs. 2.8 men). In the meta-analyses, BASDAI detected significant differences between women and men [mean difference= 0.55 (95% confidence intervals (95%CI): 0.46, 0.65), p<0.00001], but ASDAS did not identify significant mean difference between sexes [0.04 (95%CI: -0.05, 0.12), p=0.38]. Conclusion The two most widely used indexes of disease activity in spondyloarthritis discriminate differently according to sex by their different evaluation of peripheral disease. Their different components and weights influence BASDAI and ASDAS values. BASDAI may be influenced by fatigue, but in predominantly peripheral manifestations like enthesitis, ASDAS may not be sensitive enough to detect activity. This may represent a gender bias unfavourable to women, because peripheral spondyloarthritis is more common in women than in men.

scholarly journals Buteyko method for people with asthma: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. e049213
Author(s):  
Karla Morganna Pereira Pinto de Mendonça ◽  
Sean Collins ◽  
Tácito ZM Santos ◽  
Gabriela Chaves ◽  
Sarah Leite ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionButeyko method is recommended as a non-pharmacological treatment for people with asthma. Although the worldwide interest in the Buteyko method, there is a paucity of studies gathering evidence to support its use. Therefore, we aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of the Buteyko method in children and adults with asthma.Methods and analysisWe will search on Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for studies focusing on the Buteyko method for children and adults with asthma. The searches will be carried out in September 2021 from database’s inception to the present. We will include randomised controlled trials comparing Buteyko method alone with asthma education or inactive control intervention. There will be no restriction on language. Primary outcomes include quality of life, asthma symptoms and adverse events/side effects. Two review authors will independently screen the studies for inclusion and extract data. We will assess the quality of the included studies using the ‘Risk of Bias’ tool. The certainty of the evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach. Data synthesis will be conducted using Review Manager software. Reporting of the review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.Ethics and disseminationThis study will assess and provide evidence for the use of the Buteyko method in people with asthma. We will analyse secondary data and this does not require ethics approval. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals, at relevant conferences and will be shared in plain language in social media. Moreover, the findings of this review could guide the direction of healthcare practice and research.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020193132.

A Primer on Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (02) ◽  
pp. 103-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nghia Nguyen ◽  
Siddharth Singh
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Data Abstraction ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Medical Librarian ◽  
Quantitative Synthesis ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractWith the rapid growth of biomedical literature, there is increasing need to make meaningful inferences from a comprehensive and complex body of evidence. Systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses offer an objective and summative approach to synthesize knowledge and critically appraise evidence to inform clinical practice. Systematic reviews also help identify key knowledge gaps for future investigation. In this review, the authors provide a step-by-step approach to conducting a systematic review. These include: (1) formulating a focused and clinically-relevant question; (2) designing a detailed review protocol with explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria; (3) performing a systematic literature search of multiple databases and unpublished data, in consultation with a medical librarian, to identify relevant studies; (4) meticulous data abstraction by at least two sets of investigators independently; (5) assessing risk of bias in individual studies; (6) quantitative synthesis with meta-analysis; and (7) critically and transparently ascertaining quality of evidence.

scholarly journals The differential efficacy of systemic therapy: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niels Braus ◽  
Rebecca von Oepen ◽  
Nina Immel ◽  
Johanna Wichmann ◽  
Christian Frankman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
System Functioning ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background: Systemic therapy is a widespread evidence-based psychotherapy approach. Its main goal revolves around the concept of viewing mental symptoms within the context of social systems (e.g., families, couples). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have confirmed that systemic therapy significantly reduces symptom severity of DSM- or ICD-diagnosed patients. This meta-analysis aims to investigate the differential efficacy of systemic therapy, taking into account moderators (e.g., allegiance, adherence) and outcomes (system functioning) not considered in previous meta-analytical investigations.Methods: To conduct a comprehensive literature search, we will optimize search strategies from previous systematic reviews on systemic therapy. The search strategy presented in this protocol has improved the precision and sensitivity by using an iterative validation and optimization process. We will conduct the literature search in multiple electronic databases (PsycInfo, Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)). We will include all randomized controlled trials that report quantitative outcomes for symptom change and/or system functioning. For the calculations, we will conduct a Bayesian meta-analysis for the outcomes based on a random-effects model, a Bayesian meta-regression for the moderators, and Bayesian subgroup analysis for disorder-specific differences.Discussion: Understanding the differential efficacy of systemic therapy is essential for the conceptualization, performance, and analysis of future research and therapeutic practice. This meta-analysis faces potential limitations associated with the definition of systemic therapy, as well as methodological problems in systemic therapy research.

Esophageal defect repair by artificial scaffolds: a systematic review of experimental studies and proportional meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dimitrios Schizas ◽  
Maximos Frountzas ◽  
Emmanouil Sgouromallis ◽  
Eleftherios Spartalis ◽  
Konstantinos S Mylonas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tissue Engineering ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Esophageal Replacement ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Graft Stenosis ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background The traditional technique of gastrointestinal reconstruction of the esophagus after esophagectomy presents plenty of complications. Hence, tissue engineering has been introduced as an effective artificial alternative with potentially fewer complications. Three types of esophageal scaffolds have been used in experimental studies so far. The aim of our meta-analysis is to present the postoperative outcomes after esophageal replacement with artificial scaffolds and the investigation of possible factors that affect these outcomes. Methods The present proportional meta-analysis was designed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews guidelines. We searched Medline, Scopus, Clinicaltrials.gov, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases from inception until February 2020. Results Overall, 32 studies were included that recruited 587 animals. The pooled morbidity after esophageal scaffold implantation was 53.4% (95% CI = 36.6–70.0%). The pooled survival interval was 111.1 days (95% CI = 65.5–156.8 days). Graft stenosis (46%), postoperative dysphagia (15%), and anastomotic leak (12%) were the most common complications after esophageal scaffold implantation. Animals that underwent an implantation of an artificial scaffold in the thoracic part of their esophagus presented higher survival rates than animals that underwent scaffold implantation in the cervical or abdominal part of their esophagus (P &lt; 0.001 and P = 0.011, respectively). Conclusion Tissue engineering seems to offer an effective alternative for the repair of esophageal defects in animal models. Nevertheless, issues like graft stenosis and lack of motility of the esophageal scaffolds need to be addressed in future experimental studies before scaffolds can be tested in human trials.

scholarly journals Methodological Quality Assessment of Systematic Review or Meta-Analysis Using AMSTAR-2: the Long-Term Effectiveness or Efficacy of Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qian Li ◽  
Ke Deng ◽  
Xiaoyuan Jiang ◽  
Huan Tao ◽  
Hui Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background：Systematic review or meta-analysis, the strong study design of high quality evidence, give inconsistent conclusion of long-term effectiveness or efficacy of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. We appraised the methodological quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Methods: We found the relevant systematic reviews or meta-analyses by searching Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the International prospective register of systematic reviews, Psyc ARTICLES/OVID, the Chinese Bio-Medical Literature Database, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the Wan Fang Data and VIP Database on March 1st, 2019. The methodological quality was assessed by A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2(AMSTAR-2). Spearman correlation analysis and non-parametric tests were used to assess the association between quality and factors. Results: Twenty-one systematic reviews or meta-analyses were included in our study. One has no individual study. In terms of methodological quality, twelve reviews were critically low in overall confidence, four reviews were low, two reviews were moderate, two reviews were high. When referring to the systematic reviews or meta-analyses of relatively better methodological quality with more credible results and conclusions, the effectiveness or efficacy of opioids was small to questionable. Cochrane reviews performed better than non-Cochrane reviews in establishing prior protocol (100% vs 17%, P<0.05), providing an excluded studies list (100% vs 50%, P<0.05) and taking risk of bias into account when interpreting the results of the review (100% vs 75%, P<0.05). There was a strong correlation (ρ=0.526, P<0.05) between the impact factor of systematic reviews or meta-analyses in published journals and methodological quality. Conclusion The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews or meta-analyses is far from satisfactory and needs improvement, especially in establishing prior protocol and justifying significant deviations from the protocol, providing an excluded primary studies list, reporting the funding information of primary studies, and assessing the potential impact of risk of bias on individual studies.

scholarly journals Pain associated with psoriasis: systematic scoping review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e031461
Author(s):  
Ana Sanader Vucemilovic ◽  
Danijela Nujic ◽  
Livia Puljak
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Chronic Skin ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionPsoriasis is a common chronic skin inflammatory disease. Its presentation, apart from affected skin areas, involves other unpleasant symptoms, such as pain. Pain deteriorates the patient’s quality of life, impairing their daily behaviour and functioning. Therefore, the alleviation of pain in patients with psoriasis should be one of the most desired outcomes of successful treatment. The aim of this study is to summarise available evidence about pain in patients with psoriasis using systematic scoping review methodology in order to map the relevant literature.Methods and analysesOur scoping systematic review will provide evidence synthesis of the literature, both quantitative and qualitative, about the pain associated with psoriasis, including pain associated with psoriatic arthritis. Any types of studies will be eligible for inclusion, and we will not have any time, language or publication status restrictions. We will search MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO via OVID, as well as Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via Cochrane Library, CINAHL via EBSCO, OpenGrey and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. All databases will be searched from the date of their inception. Retrieved bibliographic records and potentially relevant full texts will be screened by two authors independently. Two researchers will extract data independently. Any discrepancies will be resolved via discussion or consultation of the third author, if necessary. To appraise studies, we will use a Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, AMSTAR 2, Cochrane risk of bias tool and ROBINS. Our findings will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews.Ethics and disseminationThe proposed study will not be conducted with human participants. We will only use published data and therefore ethics approval is not required. Our findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed manuscript and conference reports.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document