SynthesisChinese journal of integrative medicine2019
Blood-Letting Therapy for Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Chinese journal of integrative medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bloodletting Therapy for Patients with Chronic Urticaria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.BioMed research international · 2019Pooled it
- Clinical Advantages of Phlebotomy: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses.Iranian journal of public health · 2024Review
- Recognition of language barriers in comprehending non-communicable disease management among rural elderly people in the DIMAMO surveillance area: a case of AWI-Gen participants.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Optimization of cardiovascular risk factor management in patients with BCR::ABL1 negative chronic myeloproliferative neoplasms, current knowledge, and perspectives.Annals of hematology · 2024Review
- Dietary intakes of total, nonheme, and heme iron and hypertension risk: a longitudinal study from the China Health and Nutrition Survey.European journal of nutrition · 2023Article
- Association between Blood Donation and Malignant and Benign Tumour Risk: A Population-Based Study of 3.4 Million Participants in China.Journal of oncology · 2022Article
- Traditional Chinese Medicine for Essential Hypertension: A Clinical Evidence Map.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2020Article
- Endothelial-Dependent and Independent Vascular Relaxation Effect of Tetrahydropalmatine on Rat Aorta.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of blood-letting therapy (BLT) in treatment of hypertension.
methodsA comprehensive electronic and manual bibliographic searches were performed in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Excerpt Medica Database (EMBASE), PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and Wanfang Database to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which hypertensive patients were treated with BLT or BLT plus antihypertensive drugs (BPAD) against placebo, no treatment or antihypertensive drugs. The Cochrane Risk Assessment Tool was used to assess the methodological quality of trials. The Review Manager 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.
resultsA total of 7 RCTs with 637 hypertensive patients from 1989 to 2017 were identified. Compared with antihypertensive drugs, blood pressure was significantly reduced by BLT (RR=1.21, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.44, P=0.03; heterogeneity: P=0.06, I
conclusionAlthough some positive findings were identified, no definite conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of BLT as complementary and alternative approach for treatment of hypertension could be drew due to the generally poor methodological design, significant heterogeneity, and insufficient clinical data. Further rigorously designed trials are warranted to confirm the results.
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.