ArticleMedicine2018
Tuina for low back pain: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A bibliometric analysis of the development trend of Tuina research: Based on the Web of Science (WOS) platform.Medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Tuina Combined with Medicated Oil in Non-Specific Low Back Pain Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Acupuncture combined tuina for oculomotor paralysis: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2022Article
- The efficacy of Tuina for asthma: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2020Article
- Tuina for spasticity of poststroke: protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2020Article
- TCM nonpharmacological interventions for chronic low-back pain: A protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis.Medicine · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow back pain (LBP) is one of the most common symptoms prompting patients to seek treatment. In China, tuina is a common treatment for LBP, but its effects and safety remain uncertain. This protocol is to provide the methods used to assess the effectiveness and safety of tuina for the treatment of patients with LBP.
methodsWe will search the following databases by electronic methods: MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data (WAN FANG), and VIP Information (VIP). The time limit for retrieving studies is set to be built in and before July 2018 for each database. The therapeutic effects according to the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) will be accepted as the primary outcomes. We will use RevMan V.5.3 software as well to compute the data synthesis carefully when a meta-analysis is allowed.
resultsThis study will provide a high-quality synthesis of current evidence of tuina for the treatment of patients with LBP.
conclusionThe conclusion of our systematic review will provide evidence to judge whether tuina is an effective intervention for patient with LBP. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD 42018096762.
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.