ArticleBMJ open2020
Tuina for spasticity of poststroke: protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- A bibliometric analysis of the development trend of Tuina research: Based on the Web of Science (WOS) platform.Medicine · 2025Article
- Non-Pharmacological Therapies for Post-Stroke Spastic Paralysis: A Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research from 2000 to 2024.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Review
- Acupuncture combined tuina for oculomotor paralysis: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSpasticity is a common complication of poststroke, tuina is a widely used rehabilitation treatment, although there is a lack of supportive evidence on efficacy and safety for patients with poststroke spasticity. The aim of this systematic review is to assess and synthesis evidence of efficacy and safety of tuina for spasticity of poststroke. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A comprehensive electronic search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wiley, Springer, PEDro, Chinese Science Citation Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese Scientific and Journal Database (VIP), Wanfang Database (Wanfang), Japanese medical database (CiNii), Korean Robotics Institute Summer Scholars and Thailand Thai-Journal Citation Index Centre will be conducted to search literatures of randomised controlled trials of tuina for spasticity of poststroke survivors range from the establishment to 1 January 2020.There is no time of publication limitations. The primary outcome will be measured with the Modified Ashworth Scale, and the second outcome will include Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scale, surface electromyogram RMS value, the Modified Barthel Index, Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale, quality of life 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey and Visual Analogue Scale. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions will be used to assess the risk of bias, and GRADE will be used to access the confidence in cumulative evidence. The protocol will be conducted according to approach and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols 2015. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval will not be required, for no primary data of individual patients were collected. We will publish the findings in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020163384.
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.