ArticleMedicine2020
Cupping for psoriasis vulgaris: A protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPsoriasis vulgaris (PV) is a chronic, immune-mediated dermatological disease that significantly affects the patient's health and quality of life. At present, cupping has been widely used in the treatment of psoriasis. However, the effectiveness and safety of cupping in patients with PV are still controversial. Therefore, this review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cupping therapy on PV.
methodsThe following databases will be searched from their inceptions to April 2020 with a language limitation of English and Chinese: Pubmed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Chinese Biomedical Literature Databas, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Wanfang database and Chinese Scientific Journal Database. The reference lists of eligible studies and other resources will also be searched. Two researchers will independently perform the selection of studies, data extraction, and data analysis. A fixed or random-effect model will be applied to synthesize data depend on the heterogeneity test. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients achieving at least a 60% improvement in psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) score from baseline (PASI 60). Secondary outcomes include the proportion of patients achieving at least a 90% improvement in PASI score from baseline (PASI 90), the mean change of PASI and dermatology life quality index score, the itching index, adverse events, and recurrence rate. RevMan V.5.3 software will be used for meta-analysis.
resultsThe study will provide a high-quality evidence-based review of cupping for PV.
conclusionsThe study will be conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cupping in the treatment of PV and supposed to provide clear evidence for the clinical application of cupping therapy. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As the study is a protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis that does not involve individual data, ethical approval will not be required. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. OSF REGISTRATION NUMBER: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/KV4CJ.
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.