ArticleMedicine2020
A comparison of the efficacy and safety of complementary and alternative therapies for ulcerative colitis: A protocol for 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 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.
- Effectiveness of adalimumab in severe ulcerative colitis: A systematic review and a meta-analysis.Health science reports · 2024Review
- Efficacy and safety of acupoint catgut-embedding for ulcerative colitis: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2020Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe incidence of ulcerative colitis (UC) is increasing year by year worldwide, and it is listed as one of the refractory diseases by World Health Organization. In addition to typical intestinal manifestations such as abdominal pain, diarrhea, mucus, pus, and bloody stool, it can also accompany multiorgan and multisystem extraintestinal manifestations, seriously affecting the life and work of patients. Furthermore, UC patients with a tremendous psychological pressure and affects their physical and mental health. In recent years, many complementary and alternative therapies have been used for treatment of UC, but only pair-wised drugs have been evaluated in the traditional meta-analyses and some results are inconsistent. Consequently, it is essential to propose a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis to discuss the efficacy and safety of complementary and alternative therapies in the treatment of UC.
methodsWe will search Chinese and English databases comprehensively and systematically from the establishment of databases to May 2020, free of language or publication restrictions. All randomized controlled trials on complementary and alternative therapies for UC will be included. Two researchers will independently screen titles, abstracts, full texts, and extract data, then assess the bias risk of each study. We will conduct pairwise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses to the relative outcomes of the efficacy and safety. Data analysis will use STATA and WinBUGs 1.4.3 software in this meta-analysis.
resultsThis study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of complementary and alternative therapies for UC based on changes in symptoms, clinical efficacy, quality of life and adverse events.
conclusionThis study will provide evidence for whether complementary and alternative therapies are beneficial to the treatment of UC. In order to provide reliable evidence-based medicine for clinical practice. INPLASY REGISTRATION NUMBER: INPLASY202060015.
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.