Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35976600›Full record

SynthesisQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2023

Therapeutic massage/Tuina for treatment of functional dyspepsia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Ning Dai, Qingyun He, Xuehan Liu, Min Fang, Min Xiong, Xun Li, Duoduo Li, Jianping Liu

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ning DaiCentre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, School of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7108-3654
Qingyun HeSchool of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3681-3751
Xuehan LiuCentre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, No.11 Beisanhuan Donglu, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6195-5837
Min FangCentre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, No.11 Beisanhuan Donglu, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7910-9169
Min XiongCentre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2814-6779
Xun LiCentre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, No.11 Beisanhuan Donglu, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3513-5904
Duoduo LiDongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1339-2560
Jianping LiuCentre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, School of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China. liujp@bucm.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0320-061X
Beijing University of Chinese Medicine · CNDongzhimen Hospital Affiliated to Beijing University of Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81830115
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeA systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to assess the potential effect of therapeutic massage/Tuina on functional dyspepsia (FD) patients.

methodTwelve databases and three clinical trial registries were searched until December 2021, for RCTs that compared Tuina combined with or without conventional therapy versus conventional therapy in FD. We assessed the methodological quality of included trials by the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and graded the quality of the evidence. The data were presented as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) respectively with their 95% confidence interval (CI).

resultsIn total, 14 RCTs with 1128 FD participants were included. Compared with conventional therapy, Tuina showed significant beneficial effects on improving overall symptom (RR = 1.12, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.19, low certainty evidence), and early satiation (MD -0.44 scores, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.16, very low certainty evidence). Compared with conventional therapy, Tuina plus conventional therapy also significantly improved overall symptom (RR = 1.14, 95% CI 1.06-1.23, low certainty evidence), quality of life (MD 10.44 scores, 95% CI 7.65-13.23, low certainty evidence), and epigastric pain (MD -0.76 scores, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.41, low certainty evidence). No adverse events related to Tuina and cost-effectiveness were reported.

conclusionLow certainty evidence showed that Tuina significantly improved overall symptom of FD participants compared with conventional therapy. Low certainty evidence showed that Tuina plus conventional therapy obviously improved overall symptom and quality of life of FD participants compared with conventional therapy.

Indexed as

DyspepsiaAbdominal PainHumansMassageQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicFunctional dyspepsiaMassageMeta-analysesRandomized clinical trialsSystematic reviewTuina

Identifiers

PMID35976600
OpenAlexW4292162830

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.