ArticleMedicine2020
A comparison of the efficacy and safety of complementary and alternative therapies for gastroesophageal reflux disease: A protocol for network meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most common gastrointestinal diseases in the world and is showing increasing prevalence in some countries. The disease has a chronic course that leads to a significant decline in the quality of life of patients and is associated with a high economic burden worldwide. And complementary and alternative medicine is used to treat the disease. Over the past few decades, a number of randomized controlled trials and systematic evaluations have been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different types of complementary and alternative medicine methods, so there is an urgent need to summarize and further evaluate these studies.
methodsWe will search the following sources without restrictions for date, language, or publication status: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Cochrane Library, and EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Bio-medicine Database, VIP Chinese Periodical Database, Wan Fang Database. We will apply a combination of Medical Subject Heading and free-text terms incorporating database-specific controlled vocabularies and text words to implement search strategies. We will also search the ongoing trials registered in the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Besides, the previous relevant reviews conducted on complementary and alternative therapies for GERD and reference lists of included studies will also be searched.
resultsThis study will provide a reliable basis for the treatment of GERD with complementary and alternative therapies.
conclusionsThe findings will be an available reference to evaluate the efficacy and safety of complementary and alternative therapies on GERD and may provide decision-making reference on which method to choose for clinicians. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020169332.
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.