ArticleBMJ open2022
Comparing the effectiveness of type of the traditional Chinese exercises, frequency, intensity, time in osteoporosis: a protocol for systematic evaluation and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionAs populations age, osteoporosis has become a hot topic of global public concern. The beneficial effects of traditional Chinese exercises on the musculoskeletal system have been demonstrated. However, previous research findings on osteoporosis are inconsistent, and it is unclear which type of exercise and its frequency and duration have the best effect on osteoporosis. This study aims to investigate the most appropriate exercise modality for people with osteoporosis through systematic evaluation and network meta-analysis to guide clinical practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Embase, China Biomedical Literature, China Knowledge Network, China Science and Technology Journal and Wanfang databases will be searched until January 2022. The language of the articles should be English or Chinese. All clinical randomised controlled trials on the effect of traditional Chinese exercises on osteoporosis will be included. We will use RevMan, Stata and GeMTC software to complete our network meta-analysis. We will perform risk of bias assessment, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis to correct the results. Finally, we will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guideline development tool and Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA, a new method for assessing CINeMA results) approach to evaluate the reliability of our final results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All data for this study will be obtained from published studies, so no ethical review will be needed. We will publish the results of the study in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022323622.
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.