The effectiveness of acupuncture for Parkinson’s disease: An overview of systematic reviews

ObjectivesAcupuncture is an alternative therapy for Parkinson’s disease (PD), but its efficacy and safety are controversial. This overview aimed to summarize the existing evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) in order to assess the effectiveness of acupuncture as a treatment for PD.MethodsSeven electronic databases were searched from their inception until July 2019. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) checklists were used to assess evidence quality and methodological quality, respectively. The outcomes of study were calculated using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 12 SRs/MAs were included. All 12 SRs/MAs had more than one critical weakness in AMSTAR 2 and were considered of critically low methodological quality. The quality of evidence was unsatisfactory according to the GRADE checklist. Meta-analyses showed that acupuncture combined with drug for the treatment of PD can significantly improve the total effectiveness rate compared with drug alone (RR = 1.25, 95 % CI 1.16–1.34, P < 0.001). It was also found that acupuncture combined with drug significantly improved the UPDRS I–IV total summed scores (WMD=−6.18, 95 % CI -10.32 to –2.04, P < 0.001) and Webster scores (WMD=−4.20, 95 % CI -7.59 to –0.81, P < 0.001).ConclusionAcupuncture might improve the UPDRS score, Webster score, and total effective rate in treatment of PD. It might be a safe and useful adjunctive treatment for patients with PD. However, we should interpret the findings of these reviews with caution, considering the overall limited methodological and reporting quality.     

Comparative effectiveness research: using systematic reviews and meta-analyses to synthesize empirical evidence

The increased demand for evidence-based health care practices calls for comparative effectiveness research (CER), namely the generation and synthesis of research evidence to compare the benefits and harms of alternative methods of care. A significant contribution of CER is the systematic identification and synthesis of available research studies on a specific topic. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of methodological issues pertaining to systematic reviews and meta-analyses to be used by investigators with the purpose of conducting CER. A systematic review or meta-analysis is guided by a research protocol, which includes (a) the research question, (b) inclusion and exclusion criteria with respect to the target population and studies, (c) guidelines for obtaining relevant studies, (d) methods for data extraction and coding, (e) methods for data synthesis, and (f) guidelines for reporting results and assessing for bias. This article presents an algorithm for generating evidence-based knowledge by systematically identifying, retrieving, and synthesizing large bodies of research studies. Recommendations for evaluating the strength of evidence, interpreting findings, and discussing clinical applicability are offered.     

脑卒中患者远程康复运动管理有效性及安全性的系统评价再评价

目的 检索、再评价脑卒中患者远程康复运动管理的系统评价,为临床医护人员临床决策及康复运动干预策略的持续改进提供借鉴。 方法 计算机检索Cochrane Library、Embase、PubMed、Web of Science、CINAHL、澳大利亚乔安娜布里格斯研究所（Joanna Briggs Institute,JBI）循证卫生保健中心数据库以及万方数据库、中国知网、维普数据库和中国生物医学文献数据库,查找关于脑卒中患者运动功能远程康复管理相关的系统评价/Meta分析/荟萃分析,检索时限为建库至2021年9月19日。2名经过循证知识系统培训的研究人员应用系统评价方法学质量评价工具（Assessment of Mutiple Systematic Reviews,AMSTAR）对文献进行方法学质量评价后,采用推荐分级的评估、制订与评价（Grades of Recommendations Assessment,Development and Evaluation,GRADE）系统进行证据汇总与分级。 结果 初检文献124篇,纳入文献14篇,AMSTAR质量评价结果显示,中等质量文献有5篇,其余9篇为高等质量,纳入文献的整体方法学质量较高。采用GRADE系统对14篇系统评价的67条主要结局指标的证据质量评价结果显示,22条证据为中等质量,29条证据为低等质量,16条证据为极低质量。 结论 该研究纳入的系统评价方法学质量较高,但其结局指标证据质量较低。远程康复运动管理有利于改善患者的运动功能、生活自理能力及生活质量,可提高患者的满意度与参与度,但远程运动管理干预方式的研究设计及结局指标的客观性仍需改进。     

组织工程气管重建相关临床问答

1 同种异体气管移植治疗失败的原因? 自1950年Ferguson首次报告同种异体气管移植的动物实验以来,人们对气管移植进行了大量的研究探索.     

An evaluation of systematic reviews of palliative care services

This review aimed to identify and appraise all systematic reviews of palliative care services, to examine their findings in relation to methods used, and to explore whether further methods such as meta-analysis and meta-regression may be worthwhile. Ten databases were searched and augmented by hand searching specific journals, contacting authors, and examining the reference lists of all papers retrieved. Five systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria, and the update electronic search identified a further systematic review which found similar studies. A total of 39 studies were identified by the five systematic reviews. Of the 39 studies, 15 were RCTS, and 12 of those were North American. In comparison, the majority of U.K. studies were retrospective. Each review concluded similarly that there was a lack of good quality evidence on which to base conclusions. The more recent reviews were more rigorous, but none used a quantitative analysis. Despite the difficulties in combining heterogeneous interventions and outcomes in meta-analysis or meta-regression, such techniques may be valuable. More high quality evidence is needed to compare the relative merits of the differences in models of palliative care services, so that countries can learn from other appropriate systems of care at end of life.     

组织工程化心肌组织构建的研究与问答

1 骨髓间充质干细胞分离培养方法的选择? 用于骨髓间充质干细胞分离的方法主要有4种:贴壁筛选法、密度梯度离心法、流式细胞仪法和免疫磁珠法.目前最常用的分离培养骨髓间充质干细胞的方法是密度梯度离心后贴壁培养.根据骨髓间充质干细胞与其他细胞的密度不同,将骨髓抽提物采用密度梯度离心,分离出处于1.073 g/mL密度界面上的细胞进行瓶皿接种,细胞贴壁生长,类似成纤维细胞,通过换培养基的方式除去悬浮生长细胞,可获得纯度高达95%的间充质干细胞.这种方法常与贴壁筛选法结合,操作简单,目前被认为是最理想的分离培养骨髓间充质干细胞的方法.     

Ginger for health care: An overview of systematic reviews

ObjectivesTo summarize the evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses that evaluated the efficacy of ginger in treating any conditions and critically assess the quality of these evidence.MethodsA systematic search of the literature was conducted from inception until February 28, 2019 using the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of science, Cochrane library, and four Chinese databases. Literature selection and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. The quality of SRs was evaluated using the AMSTAR-2 tool. The GRADE system was used to assess the quality of evidence.ResultsTwenty-seven SRs were included. The number of included studies were various, range from 3 to 27. The condition with the most included SRs was nausea and vomiting (n = 12, 44.4%). Many SRs showed a promising efficacy of ginger, including nausea and vomiting, metabolic syndrome and pain, while the effect of ginger for platelet aggregation failed to draw a certain conclusion. The quality of SRs was heterogeneous. All of included SRs well complied with the Item 1 (“research questions included the components of PICO”) and Item 3 (“explained selection of the study designs for inclusion”). Twenty review failed to provide registration information. Only one SR reported the sources of funding for studies included.ConclusionsIn our overview, most of SRs suggest ginger is a promising herbal medicine for health care, which is beneficial for nausea and vomiting, metabolic syndrome and pain. However, considering the limited quality of included evidence and heterogeneity of different clinical trials, more well-design studies are required to confirm the conclusion further.     

Teasing apart quality and validity in systematic reviews: an example from acupuncture trials in chronic neck and back pain

The objectives of the study were (1) to carry out a systematic review to assess the analgesic efficacy and the adverse effects of acupuncture compared with placebo for back and neck pain and (2) to develop a new tool, the Oxford Pain Validity Scale (OPVS), to measure validity of findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and to enable ranking of trial findings according to validity within qualitative reviews. Published RCTs (of acupuncture at both traditional and non-traditional points) were identified from systematic searching of bibliographic databases (e.g. MEDLINE) and reference lists of retrieved reports. Pain outcome data were extracted with preference given to standardized outcomes such as pain intensity. Information on adverse effects was also extracted. All included trials were scored using a five-item 0-16 point validity scale (OPVS). The individual RCTs were ranked according to their OPVS score to enable more weight to be placed on the trials of greater validity when drawing an overall conclusion about the efficacy of acupuncture for relieving neck and back pain. Statistical analyses were carried out on the OPVS scores to assess the relationship between trial finding (positive or negative) and validity. Thirteen RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Five trials concluded that acupuncture was effective, and eight concluded that it was not effective for relieving back or neck pain. There was no obvious difference between the findings of trials using traditional and non-traditional points. Using the new OPVS scale, the validity scores of the included trials ranged from 4 to 14. There was no significant relationship between OPVS score and trial finding (positive versus negative). Authors' conclusions did not always agree with their data. We drew our own conclusions (positive/negative) based on the data presented in the reports. Re-analysis using our conclusions showed a significant relationship between OPVS score and trial finding, with higher validity scores associated with negative findings. OPVS is a useful tool for assessing the validity of trials in qualitative reviews. With acupuncture for chronic back and neck pain, we found that the most valid trials tended to be negative. There is no convincing evidence for the analgesic efficacy of acupuncture for back or neck pain.