Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
To evaluate the effects and safety of pediatric tuina for recurrent respiratory tract infections (RRTIs).Methods
Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, and CBM databases were searched from inception to September 20 2023. Two authors independently selected studies, collected data, and evaluated methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Revman 5.4 was used for the meta-analysis.Results
Fifteen randomized controlled trials involving 1420 pediatric patients were included in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis indicated that pediatric tuina significantly reduced the incidence of RRTIs [MD -1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-1.77, -0.46)], decreased infection duration (MD -1.16 days, 95% CI [- 1.66, - 0.66]), improved IgA (MD 0.25 g/L, 95% CI [0.09, 0.41]), IgG (MD 1.64 g/L; 95% CI [0.82, 2.45]), CD3+ (MD 3.33%, 95% CI [0.74, 5.92]), CD4+ (MD 4.78%, 95% CI [2.08, 7.48]), CD4+/CD8+ ratio (MD 0.27%, 95% CI [0.08, 0.47]), and total effective rate (RR 1.19, 95% CI [1.13, 1.25]). However, IgM levels (MD 0.26 g/L, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.81]) and CD8+ (MD -1.36%, 95% CI [- 3.12, 0.41]) were not significantly different between the groups. Moreover, no Tuina-linked adverse reactions were observed.Conclusion
Pediatric tuina has shown positive effects in RRTIs treatment. However, these results should be interpreted with caution owing to study quality. Further large-scale and high-quality randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm these findings.
SUBMITTER: Wang X
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10735133 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Wang Xiaoyu X Yin Lianjun L Bai Xue X Mao Zefang Z Wang Yikun Y Li Huanan H Wang Jingui J
Medicine 20231201 51
<h4>Background</h4>To evaluate the effects and safety of pediatric tuina for recurrent respiratory tract infections (RRTIs).<h4>Methods</h4>Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, and CBM databases were searched from inception to September 20 2023. Two authors independently selected studies, collected data, and evaluated methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Revman 5.4 was used for the meta-analysis.<h4>Results</h4>Fifteen randomized cont ...[more]