ArticleMedicine2020
TCM nonpharmacological interventions for chronic low-back pain: A protocol for systematic review and 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. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Tuina Combined with Medicated Oil in Non-Specific Low Back Pain Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- The Pharmacological Mechanism of the Effect of Plant Extract Compound Drugs on Cancer Pain Based on Network Pharmacology.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2022Article
- Network meta-analysis for comparative effectiveness of treatments for chronic low back pain disorders: systematic review protocol.BMJ open · 2021Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundchronic low back pain (CLBP) are common symptoms bothering people in daily life. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) nonpharmacological interventions are gaining an increasing popularity for CLBP. Nevertheless, the evidence of efficacy and safety of random controlled trials (RCTs) remains controversial. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and acceptability of different TCM nonpharmacological therapies by systematic review and network meta-analysis.
methodsAccording to the strategy, The authors will retrieve a total of 7 electronic databases by September 2020, including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMbase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biological Medicine, Chongqing VIP, and Wan-fang databases After a series of screening, 2 researchers will use Aggregate Data Drug Information System and Stata software to analyze the data extracted from the randomized controlled trials of TCM nonpharmacological interventions for CLBP. The primary outcome will be the improvement of Pain intensity and functional status/disability and the secondary outcomes will include lobal improvement, health-related quality of life, satisfaction with treatment, and adverse events. Both classical meta-analysis and network meta-analysis will be implemented to investigate direct and indirect evidences on this topic. The quality of the evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation instrument.
resultsThis study will provide a reliable evidence for the selection of TCM nonpharmacological therapies in the treatment of CLBP.
conclusionThis study will generate evidence for different TCM nonpharmacological therapies for CLBP and provide a decision-making reference for clinical research. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require ethical approval. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication. OSF REGISTRATION NUMBER: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/4H3Y9.
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.