SynthesisMedicine2019
Systematic reviews of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments for patients with chronic urticaria: An umbrella systematic review.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acupuncture combined with pricking and cupping therapy is effective in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria.American journal of translational research · 2023Article
- Moxibustion therapy for chronic spontaneous urticaria: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A wide range of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for chronic urticaria (CU) have been evaluated in systematic reviews (SRs). We conducted an umbrella review of SRs of the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for CU, which allow the findings of separate reviews to be compared and contrasted and thereby provide decision makers in healthcare with the evidence they need.We included SRs evaluating pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for CU. Comprehensive searches were conducted in 7 bibliographic databases, relevant journals up to July 2018. Two reviewers independently assessed the studies' relevance and quality. The assessment of multiple systematic reviews tool and grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation method was used to assess the methodological quality of the SRs and classify the quality of the outcomes.In total, 41 SRs were included. Thirty-seven reviews performed quantitative research syntheses, and 4 reviews performed qualitative research syntheses. The majority of SRs evaluated interventions based on combination therapies, antihistamines, traditional Chinese medicines, autohemotherapy, omalizumab, acupuncture, cyclosporine, and leukotriene receptor antagonist. Positive intervention outcomes were reported in the majority (75.32%) of the reviews. However, the methodological quality and evidence quality of the reviews were generally poor.There is some evidence to support a variety of interventions for CU. However, there was much heterogeneity in evidence quality among SRs. Many of the SRs had methodological weaknesses that make them vulnerable to bias. Moreover, there remained little information on the relative effectiveness of one intervention compared with another. Therefore, further SRs that adherence to strict scientific methods are necessary, and primary studies make comparisons between the different treatment options directly.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.