ArticleBMJ open2025
Evaluating the efficacy and safety of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation for systemic lupus erythematosus: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effects of Transcutaneous Auricular Vagus Nerve Stimulation on Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms in World Trade Center Responders: A Feasibility and Acceptability Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionConventional treatments, like immunosuppressants for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), are associated with many side effects. Transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS) emerges as a promising adjunctive therapy, potentially offering a more benign therapeutic avenue for patients with SLE. The increased number of clinical trials, including randomised clinical trials, highlights the importance of a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tVNS in treating SLE. Consequently, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis protocol is to synthesise the available evidence to elucidate the efficacy and safety of tVNS for the treatment of SLE. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Databases include PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, Wanfang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Database and Chinese BioMedical Literature Database. Data selection, extraction and quality assessment by two independent reviewers. Fatigue is the primary outcome, and secondary outcomes include pain, quality of life, negative emotions, adverse events and measures of SLE disease activity. We will use instruments appropriate for each study type to assess the risk of bias. The credibility of evidence will be evaluated using the grading of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation system. For meta-analysis, we will use RevMan software to perform data synthesis (V.5.4.1). Besides, publication bias assessment, sensitivity, subgroup and meta-regression analyses will be conducted as appropriate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All data used in our study will be extracted from published clinical trials and, therefore, no ethical approval is required. Study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and relevant academic conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42024525580.
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.