3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Moxibustion therapy for chronic spontaneous urticaria : A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a common disease in clinical, and often recrudescent. However, sometimes Western medicine treatments such as antihistamines cannot completely control the symptoms of CSU; therefore, more effective and optimized treatments are needed. Numerous studies have confirmed that moxibustion therapy is effective in treating CSU. Given that no relevant systematic reviews and meta-analysis have been carried out, we set out to prove the effect of moxibustion therapy for CSU.

          Methods:

          This protocol will be conducted based on the PRISMA-P guidelines and comply with the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook for Systematic Reviews. We plan to search the subsequent databases: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE.com and Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Database, Chinese Science Journal Database, and China Biomedical Literature Database. The studies will be screened under the eligibility criterion. The quality of the studies will be assessed based on the Cochrane risk bias tool. Ultimately, Review Manager 5.3 will be used for statistical analysis.

          Results:

          This research will comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness of moxibustion therapy for CSU, and provide a more reasonable and effective treatment plan for CUS.

          Conclusion:

          This research will bring new evidence for the efficacy of moxibustion therapy in the treatment of CSU and provide a basis for future clinical applications.

          Inplasy registration number:

          INPLASY2020100045

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

            The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: an update.

              The random-effects model is often used for meta-analysis of clinical studies. The method explicitly accounts for the heterogeneity of studies through a statistical parameter representing the inter-study variation. We discuss several iterative and non-iterative alternative methods for estimating the inter-study variance and hence the overall population treatment effect. We show that the leading methods for estimating the inter-study variance are special cases of a general method-of-moments estimate of the inter-study variance. The general method suggests two new two-step methods. The iterative estimate is statistically optimal and it can be easily calculated on a spreadsheet program, such as Microsoft Excel, available on the desktop of most researchers. The two-step methods approximate the optimal iterative method better than the earlier one-step non-iterative methods.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Medicine (Baltimore)
                Medicine (Baltimore)
                MEDI
                Medicine
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (Hagerstown, MD )
                0025-7974
                1536-5964
                13 November 2020
                13 November 2020
                : 99
                : 46
                : e23226
                Affiliations
                [a ]Huashan Hospital Affiliated to Fudan University
                [b ]905 Hospital of People's Liberation Army Navy, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
                Author notes
                []Correspondence: Jingcheng Dong, Department of Integrative Medicine, Huashan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200040, People's Republic of China (e-mail: jcdong2004@ 123456126.com ).
                Article
                MD-D-20-09341 23226
                10.1097/MD.0000000000023226
                7668497
                33181706
                07c5e5dc-ec86-4bdf-9152-01e2396794f1
                Copyright © 2020 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

                History
                : 13 October 2020
                : 19 October 2020
                Categories
                4000
                Research Article
                Study Protocol Systematic Review
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                chronic spontaneous urticaria,moxibustion therapy,protocol,systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article