Dataset Information

Eunkyosan for treatment of the common cold: A protocol for the systematic review of controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Eunkyosan (EKS) is widely used for common colds in East Asian countries. Many clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of EKS formula for the treatment of common colds have been reported. This review will assess the clinical evidence for and against the use of EKS formula as a treatment for common colds.

Methods and analysis

Fourteen databases will be searched from inception until March 2018. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing EKS decoctions for any type of common cold. All RCTs of decoctions or modified decoctions will be included. The methodological qualities of the RCTs will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias, while confidence in the cumulative evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) instrument.

Ethics and dissemination

This systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will also be disseminated electronically and in print. The review will be updated to inform and guide healthcare practices.Registration number: CRD42018087694.

SUBMITTER: Lee H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6392552 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Eunkyosan for treatment of the common cold: A protocol for the systematic review of controlled trials.

Lee Hesol H Kang Bohyung B Choi Jun-Yong JY Park Sunju S Lee Myeong Soo MS Lee Ju Ah JA

Medicine 20180501 18

<h4>Introduction</h4>Eunkyosan (EKS) is widely used for common colds in East Asian countries. Many clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of EKS formula for the treatment of common colds have been reported. This review will assess the clinical evidence for and against the use of EKS formula as a treatment for common colds.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>Fourteen databases will be searched from inception until March 2018. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing EKS d ...[more]

PMID: 29718842

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundClinical significance in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) can be determined using the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), which should inform the delta value used to determine sample size. The primary objective was to assess clinical significance in the pediatric oncology randomized controlled trial (RCT) treatment literature by evaluating: (1) the relationship between the treatment effect and the delta value as reported in the sample size calculation, and (2) the concordance between statistical and clinical significance. The secondary objective was to evaluate the reporting of methodological attributes related to clinical significance.MethodsRCTs of pediatric cancer treatments, where a sample size calculation with a delta value was reported or could be calculated, were systematically reviewed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Childhood Cancer Group Specialized Register through CENTRAL were searched from inception to July 2016.ResultsRCTs (77 overall; 11 and 66), representing 95 (13 and 82) randomized questions were included for non-inferiority and superiority RCTs (herein, respectively). The minority (22.1% overall; 76.9 and 13.4%) of randomized questions reported conclusions based on clinical significance, and only 4.2% (15.4 and 2.4%) explicitly based the delta value on the MCID. Over half (67.4% overall; 92.3 and 63.4%) reported a confidence interval or standard error for the primary outcome experimental and control values and 12.6% (46.2 and 7.3%) reported the treatment effect, respectively. Of the 47 randomized questions in superiority trials that reported statistically non-significant findings, 25.5% were possibly clinically significant. Of the 24 randomized questions in superiority trials that were statistically significant, only 8.3% were definitely clinically significant.ConclusionsA minority of RCTs in the pediatric oncology literature reported methodological attributes related to clinical significance and a notable portion of statistically insignificant studies were possibly clinically significance.

Project description:BackgroundPain is a universal experience and the most common reason for seeking healthcare. Inadequate pain management negatively impacts numerous aspects of patient health. Multidisciplinary treatment programmes, including psychosocial interventions, are more useful for pain management than purely biomedical treatment alone. Recently, researchers showed increasing interest in understanding the role of spirituality/religiosity and spiritual/religious practices on pain experience, with engagement in religious practices, such as prayer, showing to positively impact pain experience in religious individuals. This systematic review will seek to summarise and integrate the existing findings from randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of prayer and prayer-based interventions on pain experience.MethodsThe systematic review procedures and its report will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Electronic searches in nine databases (Web of Science Core Collection, MEDLINE, SCIELO Citation Index, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trial, PsycINFO, Scopus, LILACS and Open-SIGLE) will be performed to identify randomised controlled trials of prayer-based interventions. Two independent researchers will assess studies for inclusion and extract data from each paper. Risk of bias assessment will be assessed independently by two reviewers based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. Qualitative synthesis of the body of research will be conducted using a narrative summary synthesis method. Meta-analysis will be limited to studies reporting on the same primary outcome. Formal searches are planned to start in June 2021. The final report is anticipated to be completed by September 2021.DiscussionFindings will be useful to (1) understand the condition of our knowledge in this field and (2) provide evidence for prayer effectiveness in reducing pain intensity and pain-related stress and increasing pain tolerance in adults experiencing acute or chronic pain.Prospero registration numberCRD42020221733.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine and quantify differences in efficacy between treatment regimens for brucellosis.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials assessing different antibiotic regimens and durations of treatment for human brucellosis.Data sourcesPubMed, CENTRAL, Lilacs, conference proceedings, and bibliographies with no restrictions on language, study year, or publication status. Review methods Search, application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality independently performed in duplicate. Primary outcomes were relapse and overall failure resulting from primary failure or relapse. Relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and pooled with a fixed effect model.Results30 trials and 77 treatment arms were included. Overall failure was significantly higher with doxycycline-rifampicin compared to doxycycline-streptomycin, mainly due to a higher rate of relapse (relative risk 2.80, 95% confidence interval 1.81 to 4.36; 13 trials, without heterogeneity). Results were consistent among patients with bacteraemia and complicated brucellosis. Doxycycline-streptomycin resulted in a significantly higher rate of failure than doxycycline-rifampicin-aminoglycoside (triple drug regimen) (2.50, 1.26 to 5.00; two trials). Gentamicin was not inferior to streptomycin (1.45, 0.52 to 4.00 for failure; two trials). Quinolones combined with rifampicin were significantly less effective than doxycycline combined with rifampicin or streptomycin (1.83, 1.11 to 3.02, for failure; five trials). Monotherapy was associated with a higher risk of failure than combined treatment when administered for a similar duration (2.56, 1.55 to 4.23; five trials). Treatment for six weeks or more offered an advantage over shorter treatment durations.ConclusionsThere are significant differences in effectiveness between currently recommended treatment regimens for brucellosis. The preferred treatment should be with dual or triple regimens including an aminoglycoside.

Dataset Information

Eunkyosan for treatment of the common cold: A protocol for the systematic review of controlled trials.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Publications

Eunkyosan for treatment of the common cold: A protocol for the systematic review of controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets