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

      An evidence‐based guideline on treating lumbar disc herniation with traditional Chinese medicine

      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

          Lumbar disc herniation (LDH), as one of the most common causes of lower back pain, imposes a heavy economic burden on patients and society. Conservative management is the first‐line choice for the majority of LDH patients. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is an important part of conservative treatment and has attracted more and more international attention.

          Study design

          Evidence‐based guideline.

          Methods

          We formed a guideline panel of multidisciplinary experts. The clinical questions were identified on the basis of a systematic literature search and a consensus meeting. We searched the literature for direct evidence on the management of LDH and assessed its certainty‐generated recommendations using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach.

          Results

          The guideline panel made 20 recommendations, which covered the use of Shentong Zhuyu decoction, Shenzhuo decoction, Simiao San decoction, Duhuo Jisheng decoction, Yaobitong capsule, Yaotongning capsule, Osteoking, manual therapy, needle knife, manual acupuncture, electroacupuncture, Chinese exercise techniques (Tai Chi, Baduanjin, or Yijinjing), and integrative medicine, such as combined non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs, neural nutrition, and traction. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of ungraded consensus‐based statement.

          Conclusion

          This is the first LDH treatment guideline for TCM and integrative medicine with a systematic search, synthesis of evidence, and using the GRADE method to rate the quality of evidence. We hope these recommendations can help support healthcare workers caring for LDH patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references138

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

          Summary Background The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017 (GBD 2017) includes a comprehensive assessment of incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability (YLDs) for 354 causes in 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2017. Previous GBD studies have shown how the decline of mortality rates from 1990 to 2016 has led to an increase in life expectancy, an ageing global population, and an expansion of the non-fatal burden of disease and injury. These studies have also shown how a substantial portion of the world's population experiences non-fatal health loss with considerable heterogeneity among different causes, locations, ages, and sexes. Ongoing objectives of the GBD study include increasing the level of estimation detail, improving analytical strategies, and increasing the amount of high-quality data. Methods We estimated incidence and prevalence for 354 diseases and injuries and 3484 sequelae. We used an updated and extensive body of literature studies, survey data, surveillance data, inpatient admission records, outpatient visit records, and health insurance claims, and additionally used results from cause of death models to inform estimates using a total of 68 781 data sources. Newly available clinical data from India, Iran, Japan, Jordan, Nepal, China, Brazil, Norway, and Italy were incorporated, as well as updated claims data from the USA and new claims data from Taiwan (province of China) and Singapore. We used DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool, as the main method of estimation, ensuring consistency between rates of incidence, prevalence, remission, and cause of death for each condition. YLDs were estimated as the product of a prevalence estimate and a disability weight for health states of each mutually exclusive sequela, adjusted for comorbidity. We updated the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary development indicator of income per capita, years of schooling, and total fertility rate. Additionally, we calculated differences between male and female YLDs to identify divergent trends across sexes. GBD 2017 complies with the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting. Findings Globally, for females, the causes with the greatest age-standardised prevalence were oral disorders, headache disorders, and haemoglobinopathies and haemolytic anaemias in both 1990 and 2017. For males, the causes with the greatest age-standardised prevalence were oral disorders, headache disorders, and tuberculosis including latent tuberculosis infection in both 1990 and 2017. In terms of YLDs, low back pain, headache disorders, and dietary iron deficiency were the leading Level 3 causes of YLD counts in 1990, whereas low back pain, headache disorders, and depressive disorders were the leading causes in 2017 for both sexes combined. All-cause age-standardised YLD rates decreased by 3·9% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 3·1–4·6) from 1990 to 2017; however, the all-age YLD rate increased by 7·2% (6·0–8·4) while the total sum of global YLDs increased from 562 million (421–723) to 853 million (642–1100). The increases for males and females were similar, with increases in all-age YLD rates of 7·9% (6·6–9·2) for males and 6·5% (5·4–7·7) for females. We found significant differences between males and females in terms of age-standardised prevalence estimates for multiple causes. The causes with the greatest relative differences between sexes in 2017 included substance use disorders (3018 cases [95% UI 2782–3252] per 100 000 in males vs s1400 [1279–1524] per 100 000 in females), transport injuries (3322 [3082–3583] vs 2336 [2154–2535]), and self-harm and interpersonal violence (3265 [2943–3630] vs 5643 [5057–6302]). Interpretation Global all-cause age-standardised YLD rates have improved only slightly over a period spanning nearly three decades. However, the magnitude of the non-fatal disease burden has expanded globally, with increasing numbers of people who have a wide spectrum of conditions. A subset of conditions has remained globally pervasive since 1990, whereas other conditions have displayed more dynamic trends, with different ages, sexes, and geographies across the globe experiencing varying burdens and trends of health loss. This study emphasises how global improvements in premature mortality for select conditions have led to older populations with complex and potentially expensive diseases, yet also highlights global achievements in certain domains of disease and injury. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

            The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.

              This article is the first of a series providing guidance for use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system of rating quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations in systematic reviews, health technology assessments (HTAs), and clinical practice guidelines addressing alternative management options. The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes. After the evidence is collected and summarized, GRADE provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect. Recommendations are characterized as strong or weak (alternative terms conditional or discretionary) according to the quality of the supporting evidence and the balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of the alternative management options. GRADE suggests summarizing evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative summary of findings tables that show the quality of evidence and the magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each important outcome and/or as evidence profiles that provide, in addition, detailed information about the reason for the quality of evidence rating. Subsequent articles in this series will address GRADE's approach to formulating questions, assessing quality of evidence, and developing recommendations. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine
                J Evidence Based Medicine
                Wiley
                1756-5383
                1756-5391
                March 2024
                March 19 2024
                March 2024
                : 17
                : 1
                : 187-206
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Spine II Wangjing Hospital China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences Beijing China
                [2 ] Department of Orthopaedics Tianjin Hospital Tianjin China
                [3 ] Department of Orthopaedics Suzhou Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine Suzhou China
                [4 ] Centre for Evidence‐Based Chinese Medicine Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Beijing China
                [5 ] Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics School of Public Health, Capital Medical University Beijing China
                [6 ] Department of Orthopaedics Affiliated Hospital of Changchun University of Chinese Medicine Changchun China
                [7 ] Department of Orthopaedics Luoyang Orthopedic Hospital of Henan Province Luoyang China
                [8 ] Department of Orthopedics Affiliated Hospital of Shaanxi University of Chinese Medicine Xianyang China
                [9 ] Institute of Orthopaedics and Traumatology The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University Hangzhou China
                [10 ] Department of Orthopaedic Spine The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Chinese Medicine Nanning China
                [11 ] Department of Chinese Medicine The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University Guangzhou China
                [12 ] Department of Orthopaedics The Affiliated Hospital of Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Nanchang China
                [13 ] Department of Orthopedics Hubei Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine Wuhan China
                [14 ] Department of Massage and Rehabilitation Second Teaching Hospital of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Tianjin China
                [15 ] Department of Orthopaedics The Third Affiliated Hospital of Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine Harbin China
                [16 ] Department of Orthopedics Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Chengdu China
                [17 ] Department of Orthopaedics Guang'an Men Hospital China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences Beijing China
                [18 ] Department of Spine The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University Urumqi China
                [19 ] TCM Manipulative Orthopaedics Therapy Department Ward Air Force Medical Center Beijing China
                [20 ] Department of Pharmacy Dongzhimen Hospital Affiliated to Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Beijing China
                [21 ] Graduate School, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Beijing China
                [22 ] Academic Development Office, Wangjing Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences Beijing China
                [23 ] The First Clinical Medical College Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Jinan China
                Article
                10.1111/jebm.12598
                38502879
                1eda728d-5624-4e29-b26e-35cd076ec257
                © 2024

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article