Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of moxibustion for ulcerative colitis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a global chronic inflammatory bowel disease, and the poor efficacy of currently available pharmacological regimens makes the management of UC a great challenge. Moxibustion has shown great potential in the management of UC. However, its effectiveness and safety are still controversial. The purpose of this study is to synthesise the latest evidence regarding the clinical efficacy and safety of moxibustion for UC.

Methods and analysis

The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP and SinoMed databases will be searched from inception to July 2023, to identify all randomised controlled trials with moxibustion for UC. The primary outcome will be clinical efficacy, as measured by validated scales. The serum inflammatory factor, colonoscopy results, quality of life, recurrence rate and adverse events will be the secondary outcomes. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool will be used to assess the methodological quality of each included trial. All data extraction will be carried out independently by two investigators. RevMan V.5.4 software will be used for data analysis and Cochran's Q statistic and I² test will be used to assess heterogeneity between studies. In addition, we will perform subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses and publication bias if the available data are sufficient. The strength of evidence will be graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics approval is not required for this review. Our findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Prospero registration number

CRD42023425481.

SUBMITTER: Li Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10952919 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of moxibustion for ulcerative colitis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Li Yanzhen Y Zhou Wen W Chen Wenxiao W Deng Bailing B You Jianyu J

BMJ open 20240318 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a global chronic inflammatory bowel disease, and the poor efficacy of currently available pharmacological regimens makes the management of UC a great challenge. Moxibustion has shown great potential in the management of UC. However, its effectiveness and safety are still controversial. The purpose of this study is to synthesise the latest evidence regarding the clinical efficacy and safety of moxibustion for UC.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>The Coch ...[more]

PMID: 38503422

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and aimWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all the available evidence comparing efficacy and safety of oral prolonged released beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) to active oral controls in patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC). A subgroup-analysis compared the effectiveness of BDP and 5-ASA.MethodsLiterature research was performed in different databases, as well as manual search to identify abstracts from international meetings with data not included in extensive publications. Experts in the field and companies involved in BDP development and manufacture were contacted to identify unpublished studies used for registration purposes. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain odds ratio meta-analysis.ResultsFive randomized controlled trials that compared oral BDP 5mg/day vs. all oral active controls in treating UC were identified as eligible. Efficacy and safety have been addressed after 4-week treatment period. One study evaluated efficacy and safety of BDP vs. prednisone and 4 of BDP vs. 5-ASA. Treatment with oral BDP 5 mg/day induces a significant better clinical response compared to oral 5-ASA (OR 1.86, 95% CI = 1.23-2.82, P = 0.003). The effect is detectable even when the comparison to prednisone is added (OR 1.41, 95% CI = 1.03-1.93, P = 0.03). Data on remission indicate that the potential clinical efficacy of BDP may be better than 5-ASA (OR 1.55, 95% CI = 1.00-2.40, P = 0.05). This difference is lost when the comparison with prednisone is added (OR 1.30, 95% CI = 0.76-2.23, P = 0.34). The safety analysis showed no differences between BDP and 5-ASA (OR 0.55, 95% CI = 0.24-1.27, P = 0.16). The lack of difference is maintained even when the study with prednisone is added (OR 0.67, 95% CI = 0.44-1.01, P = 0.06). However, the trend of difference is clear and indicates a more favourable safety profile of BDP compared to 5-ASA and PD.ConclusionsOral prolonged release BDP showed a superior efficacy vs. oral 5-ASA in inducing clinical improvement of mild-to-moderate UC with a similar safety profile.

Project description:Background: Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is one of the most common complications of herpes zoster (HZ), and there is still a lack of effective therapies. An increasing number of studies have found that compared to traditional therapy, moxibustion treatment is beneficial for the treatment of PHN, although current evidence remains inconclusive. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of moxibustion for PHN. Methods: We conducted a broad literature review of a range of databases from inception to December 2020, including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Clinical Trails, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals (VIP), China Biomedical Network Information, and Wanfang databases. We included RCTs that compared moxibustion to pharmacological therapies, herbal medicine, or no treatment for treating PHN. The main outcome measure was efficacy rate and Visual Analog Scale (VAS); the secondary outcome measure was adverse events. Data accumulation and synthesis included meta-analysis, publication bias, sensitivity analysis, risk-of-bias assessment, and adverse events. Results: We included 13 RCTs involving 798 patients. Compared with the controls (pharmacological therapies, herbal medicine, or no treatment), moxibustion achieved a significantly higher efficacy rate (odds ratio [OR]: 3.65; 95% [confidence interval]: [2.32, 5.72]; P < 0.00001). Subgroup analysis of the distinct moxibustion modalities showed that both Zhuang medicine medicated thread and thunder-fire moxibustions obtained higher clinical efficacy than the control group. Compared with the controls, moxibustion resulted in significantly lower scores on the VAS (Weighted Mean Difference (MD) = -1.79; 95% CI: [-2.26, -1.33]; P < 0.00001). However, there was no significant difference in terms of safety between moxibustion and the controls (OR = 0.33; 95% CI [0.06, 1.77]; P = 0.19). Conclusion: Due to the lack of methodological quality as well as the significant heterogeneity of the included studies, it remains difficult to draw a firm conclusion on the efficacy and safety of moxibustion for the treatment of PHN. Future high-quality studies are urgently needed.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of moxibustion for ulcerative colitis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Prospero registration number

Publications

Efficacy and safety of moxibustion for ulcerative colitis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets