ArticleMedicine2018
Tuina for osteoporosis: A systematic review protocol.
Article in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Association between total and animal proteins with risk of fracture: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of cohort studies.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2024Pooled it
- C-reactive protein and fracture risk: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies through the use of both frequentist and Bayesian approaches.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2021Pooled it
- Design, development, and evaluation of a self-care program for women with osteoporosis: The protocol of a mixed-method study.Journal of education and health promotion · 2022Article
- The efficacy of Tuina for asthma: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2020Article
- Loss of bone mineral density following sepsis using Hounsfield units by computed tomography.Acute medicine & surgery · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOsteoporosis is one kind of commonly and frequently occurring global disease accompanying with serious complications. As a branch of the subject of Acupuncture-Tuina, tuina is widely applied for osteoporosis alone or combined with other methods in China and other nations while its effective evidence is not clear. Hence, this systematic review protocol purpose is to evaluate the value of its efficacy and safety for osteoporosis.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis will be performed by means of electronic databases including Cochrane Library, Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EBASE, Springer, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP) and others with valid search strategy probably. The assessment of bias risk, data synthesis, subgroup analysis, and meta-analyses will be conducted using RevMan V.5.3.5 software.
resultsThis systematic review will present a high-quality evidence for clinicians and might be the first to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tuina for osteoporosis including alleviation of pain, adverse event, spinal motor function improvement as well as improvement of self-care ability and daily living.
conclusionThis protocol will determine whether or not tuina is an effective and safety intervention for osteoporosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.