ArticleMedicine2020
The effectiveness of thunder fire moxibustion for treating allergic rhinitis: 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of thunder-fire moxibustion for cancer-related fatigue in breast cancer survivors: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- The Effect and Safety of Thunder-Fire Moxibustion for Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAllergic rhinitis (AR) is a chronic disease, resulting in severe syndromes such as sneezing, itching, nasal blockage, and rhinorrhea. The major medications treating AR cause side effects, while thunder fire moxibustion (TFM) is known as a safe and effective treatment for AR. Thus, this systematic review and meta analysis aims to systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of TFM in the treatment of AR.
methodsNine databases, including Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI), WanFang Database (WF), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) from inception to July 2020 will be searched. In addition, the grey literature and the references of all included literature will be retrieved manually. Reviewers will identify studies, extract data and assess the quality independently. The outcomes of interest include: total nasal symptom score, total non-nasal symptom score, rhinitis quality of life questionnaire, visual analog scale, Laboratory indicators: serum immunoglobulin E, immunoglobulin A, or immunoglobulin G level 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 (GRADE) approach. Meta-analysis will be performed using RevMan5.3.0 software.
resultsBecause the review is ongoing, no results can be reported.
conclusionsThe findings from this review will provide reliable evidence for effectiveness and safety of TFM for AR. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval requirements are not necessary for this review. This systematic review and meta analysis will be disseminated online and on paper to help guide the clinical practice better. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019141113.
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.