SynthesisBioMed research international2019
Bloodletting Therapy for Patients with Chronic Urticaria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in BioMed research international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Advantages of Phlebotomy: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses.Iranian journal of public health · 2024Review
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany trials have reported that bloodletting therapy is effective when treating chronic urticaria. There are currently no systematic reviews of bloodletting therapy for chronic urticaria.
objectiveThe aim of this review is to assess the effectiveness and safety of bloodletting therapy for chronic urticaria.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials were performed. Disease activity control was assessed as the primary outcome. Response rate, recurrence rate, and adverse events were assessed as secondary outcomes.
resultsSeven studies with 512 participants were included. One trial showed a significant difference between bloodletting therapy plus medicine and medicine alone in disease activity control (MD 0.67; 95% CI 0.03 to 1.31; p=0.04). Six trials (372 participants) showed a significant difference between bloodletting therapy and pharmacological medication in response rate (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.97-1.26; P =0.15). Two studies (170 participants) showed a significant difference between bloodletting therapy plus pharmacological medication and pharmacological medication in response rate (RR 1.34; 95% CI 1.10-1.63; p=0.003). Two studies (126 participants) reported a statistically significant difference between bloodletting therapy and pharmacological medication in recurrence rate. No serious adverse events related to bloodletting therapy were reported.
conclusionsBloodletting therapy might be an effective and safe treatment for chronic urticaria, but the evidence is scarce. More high quality trials are needed in the future.
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.