ArticleMedicine2020
Effectiveness and safety of indirect moxibustion for the treatment of allergic rhinitis: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.
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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAllergic rhinitis (AR) is a common allergic disorder worldwide. Western medicine is not optimistic about the therapeutic effect of this disease. However, moxibustion can enhance vital energy or immunity through a great number of clinical trials. Thus, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of indirect moxibustion for treating AR.
methodsWe will conduct a comprehensive literature search in Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, WanFang Database, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database from inception to August 2020 without any language restriction. In addition, we will retrieve the unpublished studies and the references of initially included literature manually. Reviewers will identify studies, extract data, and assess the quality independently. The outcomes of interest include: total effective rate, total nasal symptom score, total non-nasal symptom score, rhinitis quality of life questionnaire, visual analog scale, laboratory indicators (i.e., serum levels of IgE, IgA, or IgG), and adverse events. Randomized clinical trials will be collected, methodological quality will be evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool, and the level of evidence will be rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Meta-analysis will be performed using RevMan 5.3.0 software. The heterogeneity test will be conducted between the studies, and P < .1 and I > 50% are the thresholds for the tests. We will utilize the fixed effects model or the random effects model according to the size of heterogeneity.
resultsBecause the review is ongoing, no results can be reported.
conclusionsThe results of this review will provide reliable evidence for effectiveness and safety of indirect moxibustion for treating AR. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this study. This systematic review and meta-analysis will be disseminated online and on paper to help guide clinicians. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019140944.
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.