The Effect and Safety of Thunder-Fire Moxibustion for Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is considered the leading cause of people living with years of disability worldwide. Notably, thunder-fire moxibustion (TFM) is a new type of moxibustion, which has been widely applied to treat pain syndromes for thousands of years. This study aims to provide evidence to evaluate the effect and safety of TFM in treating LBP. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Embase, EBSCO, CNKI, Wanfang Data, CBM, and VIP (until April 2021) was used to identify studies reporting pain intensity, disability, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, and quality of life in patients with LBP. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which compared TFM and other therapies in LBP, were included. Meanwhile, methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane criteria for risk of bias, and the level of evidence was rated utilizing the GRADE approach. Results: Twenty-one RCTs, including 2198 patients, satisfied the inclusion criteria. Compared with other therapies, the effect of TFM was statistically significant, pain intensity decreased (SMD = 0.94; 95% CI (0.74, 1.14); p < 0.00001), disability improved (SMD = 1.39; 95% CI (0.19, 2.59); p=0.02), and the JOA score increased (SMD = -1.34; 95% CI (-1.88, -0.80); p < 0.00001). It was also reported that the patient's quality of life improved after treatment for a period of 4 weeks (SMD = -0.29; 95% CI (-0.42, -0.16); p < 0.0001) and after a follow-up of 1 month (SMD = -0.20; 95% CI (-0.34, -0.07); p=0.003). The evidence level of the results was determined to be very low to low. Conclusions: Based on the existing evidence, it can be concluded that TFM may have a better effect than other treatments on LBP. However, it is not yet possible to assess the safety level of TFM therapy. Due to the universal low quality of the eligible trials and low evidence level, rigorously designed large-scale RCTs must be conducted in order to further confirm the results in this review.

Gut microbial dysbiosis in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review protocol of case-control studies.

INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has a huge societal impact due to the high prevalence, irreversible joint damage and systemic complications. Gut microbiota plays an important role in the pathogenesis and progression of RA by regulating the host immune system. Restoring intestinal homeostasis by altering the microbiota could be an attractive strategy for the prevention and treatment of RA. However, the signature features of microbial dysbiosis in RA are still controversial. Therefore, we aim to elucidate the characteristic change in the diversity and composition of gut microbiota in RA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will systematically search through PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library, as well as dissertations and conference proceedings. The reference lists of all included studies will be also reviewed to retrieve additional relevant studies. The case-control studies that reported either the relative abundance of bacteria at the phylum or genus level or at least one of the alpha-diversity, beta-diversity indexes in both RA and healthy controls will be included. Eligible studies will be screened independently by two reviewers according to the inclusion criteria. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale will be used to assess the quality of the included studies. Data extraction, qualitative and quantitative analysis will be performed within the gut microbial dysbiosis in RA. The expected outcomes will be the identification of the specific changes in composition and diversity of the gut microbiota in patients with RA. The quality of evidence will be assessed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is unnecessary as this review does not address the data and privacy of patients. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021225229.

Effectiveness of Virtual Reality in Nursing Education: Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Virtual reality (VR) is the use of computer technology to create an interactive three-dimensional (3D) world, which gives users a sense of spatial presence. In nursing education, VR has been used to help optimize teaching and learning processes. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of VR in nursing education in the areas of knowledge, skills, satisfaction, confidence, and performance time. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of VR in nursing education based on the Cochrane methodology. An electronic literature search using the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), up to December 2019 was conducted to identify studies that reported the effectiveness of VR on knowledge, skills, satisfaction, confidence, and performance time. The study selection and data extraction were carried out by two independent reviewers. The methodological quality of the selected studies was determined using the Cochrane criteria for risk-of-bias assessment. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies, including 821 participants, were selected for the final analysis. We found that VR was more effective than the control conditions in improving knowledge (standard mean difference [SMD]=0.58, 95% CI 0.41-0.75, P<.001, I2=47%). However, there was no difference between VR and the control conditions in skills (SMD=0.01, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.26, P=.93, I2=37%), satisfaction (SMD=0.01, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.80, P=.99, I2=86%), confidence (SMD=0.00, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.27, P=.99, I2=0%), and performance time (SMD=-0.55, 95% CI -2.04 to 0.94, P=.47, I2=97%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that VR can effectively improve knowledge in nursing education, but it was not more effective than other education methods in areas of skills, satisfaction, confidence, and performance time. Further rigorous studies with a larger sample size are warranted to confirm these results.

Metabolomics in the development and progression of rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: A systematic review and analysis of data from several rheumatoid arthritis metabolomics studies attempts to determine which metabolites can be used as potential biomarkers for the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis and to explore the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: We searched all the subject-related documents published by EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from the database to the September 2019 publication. Two researchers independently screened the literature and extracted the data. QUADOMICS tool was used to assess the quality of studies included in this systematic review. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies met the inclusion criteria of systematic review, including 502 patients with rheumatoid arthritis and 373 healthy people. Among them, the biological samples utilised for metabolomic analysis include: serum (n=8), urine (n=1) and synovial fluid (n=1). Some metabolites play an important role in rheumatoid arthritis: glucose, lactic acid, citric acid, leucine, methionine, isoleucine, valine, phenylalanine, threonine, serine, proline, glutamate, histidine, alanine, cholesterol, glycerol, and ribose. CONCLUSIONS: Metabolomics provides important new opportunities for further research in rheumatoid arthritis and is expected to elucidate the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis that has not been fully understood before.

Efficacy and safety of moxibustion for chronic low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: To systematically review and meta-analyze the efficacy of moxibustion in treating patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). METHODS: A systematic search of the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, EBSCO, CBM, Wanfang, CNKI and VIP (until November, 2019) was used to identify studies reporting pain intensity (VAS or NRS), disability (ODI or RMDQ), JOA score, and quality of life (SF-36) in patients with CLBP. Study selection, data extraction was performed critically and independently by two reviewers. Cochrane criteria for risk of bias was used to assess the methodological quality of the trials. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Methodology (GRADE) was applied to test the quality of evidence from the quantitative analysis. RESULTS: Ten RCTs, including 987 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Moxibustion had a superior effect on VAS score when compared with western medicine [RR = -1.69, 95%CI(-2.40, -0.98), p < 0.00001] and acupuncture [RR = -0.47, 95%CI(-0.92, -0.02), p=0.04], but it failed to do so when compared with core stability training [RR = -0.41, 95%CI(-0.87, 0.05), p=0.08]. The result showed that moxibustion plus other active treatments (including western medicine, massage, acupuncture and core stability training) had better effects on low back pain relief compared with active treatments alone. Moxibustion showed favourable effects on disability [SMD = -3.80, 95%CI (-5.49, -2.11), p < 0.0001], JOA score [MD = 4.10, 95%CI(2.30, 5.90), p < 0.00001], and SF-36 score [MD = 13.41, 95%CI(9.68, 17.14), p < 0.00001]. The evidence level of the results from the ten studies was determined to be very low to low. CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to draw firm conclusions that moxibustion is an effective intervention for treating CLBP due to the small sample size of eligible trails and the high risk of bias among the available articles. Rigorously designed large-scale RCTs are required to further confirm the results in this review.