ArticleMedicine2020
The efficacy of manual therapy (Chuna) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Protocol for a systematic review.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The efficacy of manual therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Release and Actions of Inflammatory Exosomes in Pulmonary Emphysema: Potential Therapeutic Target of Acupuncture.Journal of inflammation research · 2021Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a challenging disease whose prevalence has increased over the last decades. Non-pharmacological therapies such as pulmonary rehabilitation occupy a core position in patient management. Among these therapies, manual therapy reduces symptoms and increases exercise capacity targeting musculoskeletal problems. Chuna, a traditional Korean manual therapy, has improved pulmonary disorders in clinical practice but unfortunately has not had its effects reported. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of manual therapy, focused on the use of Chuna in the management of COPD patients.
methodsThe following databases will be used in this study: MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Database (CNKI), KoreaMed, Korean Medical Database (KMbase), and Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System (OASIS). The primary outcome comprises lung function and exercise capacity. Secondary outcomes included symptoms, quality of life, and adverse events. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and crossover studies. Two independent reviewers will screen the searched studies, determine if they are suitable for inclusion, and perform data extraction. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. When appropriate, data will be pooled across studies for meta-analysis using a fixed or random effects model. When quantitative synthesis is not appropriate, the evidence will be summarized qualitatively.
resultsThis study will provide a comprehensive review of the available evidence to assess the efficacy of Chuna for COPD patients. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated electronically and in print.
conclusionsThis study will provide high-quality current evidence for evaluation the efficacy of Chuna for patients with COPD. Clinicians, patients and policy makers may find this review useful in making decisions regarding the use of Chuna for patients with COPD. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019141150.
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.