ReviewIntegrative medicine research2022
Comparative effectiveness of East Asian traditional medicine for treatment of idiopathic short stature in children: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Review in Integrative medicine research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Effectiveness of East Asian Traditional Medicine for Childhood Simple Obesity: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Electrical Stimulation of Acupuncture Points Helps Resolve a Child's Failure to Thrive.Medical acupuncture · 2024Article
- The Effects of Natural Product-Derived Extracts for Longitudinal Bone Growth: An Overview of In Vivo Experiments.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Clinical Practice Pattern of Korean Medicine Doctors in Idiopathic Short Stature Treatment: A Survey Study.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIdiopathic short stature (ISS) is a common problem in children and causes many economic and social burdens. In Asian countries, East Asian traditional medicine (EATM) therapies are widely used for children with ISS. In this study, we compared and ranked various EATM therapies for the treatment of pediatric ISS using network meta-analysis.
methodsRandomized controlled trials that evaluated various EATMs for pediatric ISS were found through searching 14 electronic databases. The primary outcome was growth velocity (GV). The comparative effectiveness of the treatments was ranked based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) and the risk of bias was assessed. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach.
resultsFourteen studies comprising 1,066 participants were included. HM plus GH showed statistically significant superiority over other EATM therapies including acupuncture (weighted mean difference (WMD) 3.20 cm, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 5.99) and HM (WMD 3.70 cm, 95% CI 1.41 to 5.99) for improving GV per year, although there was no difference compared with GH alone (WMD 1.18 cm, 95% CI -0.27 to 2.63). SUCRA indicated that HM plus GH was the most effective therapy for increasing GV, followed by GH, HM plus acupressure, and HM. No serious adverse events were reported.
conclusionFor the treatment of ISS, HM plus GH might have a large beneficial effect and might be a better option than EATM therapies and GH alone. However, more long-term, high-quality trials are warranted to confirm the findings. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/), CRD42020187160.
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.