ReviewJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2023
Quality of evidence supporting the role of acupuncture for breast cancer-related lymphoedema: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Review in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2023. 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, 1 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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) may benefit from acupuncture as a therapeutic. However, the findings of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are inconsistent and their quality needs to be evaluated critically. We aimed to provide an overview of the methodological quality, risk of bias, quality of reporting, and quality of evidence for SRs/MAs of acupuncture for BCRL.
methodsPublications were retrieved from four Chinese databases and four English databases. The methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality, and evidence quality of the included SRs/MAs were assessed by two independent researchers using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), respectively.
resultsThere were a total of 8 SRs/MAs included. By AMSTAR-2, all SRs/MAs were graded as having low or very low methodological quality. By ROBIS, all SRs/MAs in phase 1, domain 1, and domain 4 of phase 2 were at low risk, while in domain 2 were at high risk. By PRISMA, reporting weaknesses in protocol and registration, as well as search method, were identified. By GRADE, the level of evidence quality was "low" to "very low", and the most commonly downgraded factor was the risk of bias.
conclusionsAcupuncture may be beneficial in improving BCRL. However, due to the identified limitations and conflicting findings, further more prescriptive and rigorous SRs/MAs are required to give strong evidence for final judgments.
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.