SynthesisBMC pediatrics2025
Effectiveness and safety of Tuina massage therapy for paediatric fever: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC pediatrics, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically analyse the efficacy and safety of Tuina massage therapy for paediatric fever. METHODS AND
resultsA search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases, and it retrieved relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up to November 2023. Fifteen trials (1,661 pediatric patients) were included, focusing on Tuina massage and tepid water massage. Studies were excluded due to: duplicate data, irrelevant types, incomplete outcomes and use of other interventions. The Cochrane RoB tool was employed to assess methodological quality, and the GRADE approach was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence. The review was registered with the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (INPLASY), registration number INPLASY202270041, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Massage treatment (120 min) showed a non-significant difference (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.68; 95% CI: - 0.31-1.67) compared with antipyretic medication. However, combining antipyretic medication and massage significantly reduced fever (SMD: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.50-1.30). Subgroup analysis indicated traditional Chinese Tuina massage significantly reduced pediatric fever (relative risk [RR]: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.26-0.65).
conclusionThis meta-analysis suggests that traditional Chinese Tuina may be a promising adjunctive therapy for pediatric fever. Careful consideration of each child's specific conditions is necessary to ensure safety and comfort. Future research should enhance study design quality and broaden the scope of non-pharmacological treatment methods.
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.