Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35185621›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2022

An Overview of Systematic Reviews of Moxibustion for Knee Osteoarthritis.

Shao Yin, Fengya Zhu, Zhao Li, Deya Che, Liuying Li, Jie Feng, Lu Zhang, Zhenyi Huo

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in physiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Shao YinHospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Fengya ZhuTraditional Chinese Medicine Department, Zigong First People's Hospital, Zigong, China.
Zhao LiHospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Deya CheTraditional Chinese Medicine Department, Zigong First People's Hospital, Zigong, China.
Liuying LiTraditional Chinese Medicine Department, Zigong First People's Hospital, Zigong, China.
Jie FengHospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Lu ZhangHospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Zhenyi HuoHospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Zigong First People's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrently, many systematic reviews (SRs) of moxibustion as a treatment of KOA have been published. However, the evidence of different SRs of moxibustion to treat KOA has not been comprehensively evaluated.

aimThis overview aimed to evaluate the existing results and provide scientific evidence of the effectiveness and safety of moxibustion in the treatment of KOA.

methodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, SinoMed, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and other databases until October 31, 2021. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) was used to assess the methodological quality of SRs. Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was used to evaluate the reporting quality, and the risk of bias in SRs was evaluated by ROBIS Tool. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool to determine the strength of evidence and conducted a meta-analysis of the total effectiveness rate.

resultsFinally, 10 qualified SRs were included, including 57 randomized controlled trials and 5,149 participants. All SRs evaluated by AMASTAR-2 had more than one critical deficiency, so all SRs were rated as critically low. In the PRISMA checklist, the manuscript structures of the included SRs were relatively complete. Including four SRs with a low risk of bias and six with a high risk of bias using the ROBIS tool. In GRADE, two items (6.25%) were rated as high quality, three (9.37%) as medium quality, 17 (53.12%) as low quality and 10 (31.25%) as very low quality. A re-meta-analysis showed that moxibustion and moxibustion combined treatment improved the total effectiveness rate in knee osteoarthritis (risk ratio = 1.17, 95% confidence interval 1.13-1.21,

conclusionMoxibustion seems to be effective in treating KOA. Four SRs reported 10 common discomfort symptoms caused by moxibustion, and these adverse events can spontaneously subside, even can be avoided, therefore, moxibustion for KOA appears to be safe. However, the reliability of the results is reduced by the high risk of bias of the original studies and the low methodological quality of SRs. Therefore, future studies should pay more attention to the quality of the original study and the evidence quality of the SRs to provide more powerful and scientific evidence of the effectiveness and safety of moxibustion treatment of KOA.

Indexed as

knee osteoarthritismethodological qualitymoxibustionoverviewsystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID35185621
PMCPMC8850775
OpenAlexW4210358048

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.