SynthesisJournal of evidence-based integrative medicine
A Systematic Review on Safety and Efficacy of Ayurvedic Interventions in Hemiplegia (
Synthesis in Journal of evidence-based integrative medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine in the management of ischemic stroke: a narrative review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study's objective is to conduct a comprehensive systematic review for assessing the safety and efficacy of Ayurvedic interventions in managing hemiplegia/Pakshaghata. The study involved a search across multiple online databases and online clinical trial registries. Additionally, major Ayurveda postgraduate institutes were contacted to acquire unpublished trial data related to hemiplegia/Pakshaghata. The review covered articles published until July 2023. Two reviewers independently performed data extraction and risk of bias assessment. The risk of bias assessment utilised the RoB 2 tool for randomised trials and the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised trials. The screening process identified 28 articles from online databases and two dissertations from online repositories. However, practical challenges prevented access to grey literature from Ayurveda institutes. The 30 studies selected for this review, comprises nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs), eight non-randomised comparative trials, and thirteen pre-post studies. Quantitative analysis was unfeasible due to inadequate studies, leading to a qualitative analysis. All studies, except one, exhibited substantial bias upon risk of bias assessment. Moreover, most studies demonstrated methodological weaknesses attributed to a lack of masking, improper sampling techniques, non-validated outcome measurement tools, inadequate follow-up procedures, and confounding factors. The trials frequently did not document safety parameters, adverse events (AE), and adverse drug reactions (ADR). Current review could not definitively establish the efficacy and safety of Ayurvedic interventions in hemiplegia/Pakshaghata. Hence, the authors strongly advocate for good quality research incorporating proper methodology.
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.