SynthesisEuropean journal of medical research2024
Adverse events in India's Ayush interventions for cervical and lumbar spondylosis: a systematic review.
Synthesis in European journal of medical research, 2024. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionLow back and neck pain are common musculoskeletal disorders with multiple treatment options. India's traditional medical systems, known as Ayush (Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa-Rigpa and Homoeopathy) offer range of interventions and are widely used. In view of limited documentation of adverse events following Ayush interventions for lumbar and cervical spondylosis, we synthesized evidence and estimated proportion of studies reporting adverse events.
methodsWe systematically searched all published documents from biomedical and multidisciplinary abstract and citation databases and Ayush-specific repositories from their inception to April 2021. We selected studies as per inclusion criteria and extracted information, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. We systematically reviewed the qualitative evidence form the selected studies.
resultsMajority (94%) of the selected 113 studies were interventional studies and included 77 (68.1%) journal articles and 35 (31%) academic dissertations. Among the Ayush systems, considerable proportion was from Ayurveda (32.7%), followed by Siddha (24.8%), Yoga (22.1%), Unani (15.9%) and Homoeopathy (4.4%). Almost three-fourths of the studies were on lumbar spondylosis (65%; n = 74), followed by cervical spondylosis (31%; n = 35), and the remaining four included both. Thirteen percent of the 113 studies described adverse events [Yoga = 9.7%; Unani = 1.8% and Homoeopathy = 1.8%]. More adverse events were reported among the studies on lumbar (9.7%) than cervical spondylosis (2.7%). The nature of interventions were non-pharmacological (10.6%; n = 12), pharmacological (n = 2; 1.8%) or combined (n = 1; 0.9%).
conclusionsOnly one in eight studies reported any adverse event following Ayush interventions for cervical and lumbar spondylosis. There could be certain degree of underreporting of adverse events and requires further exploration. PROSPERO Registration ID CRD42020167433.
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.