[Status of outcome measures in randomized controlled trials of kidney-tonifying and blood-activating method in treatment of knee osteoarthritis].

This study assesses the status of outcome measures in the randomized controlled trial(RCT) involving the kidney-tonif-ying and blood-activating method for treating knee osteoarthritis(KOA), aiming to establish a theoretical foundation for the development of a core set of outcome measures in traditional Chinese medicine(TCM) treatment of KOA. The relevant articles were retrieved from CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, SinoMed, PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, in addition to ClinicalTrials.gov and the China Clinical Trial Registration Center, with the time interval from inception to August 2023. The RCT of treating KOA with the kidney-tonifying and blood-activating method was included. Two assessors independently conducted literature screening, data collection, and qualitative analysis to compile the outcome measure results. A total of 350 RCTs were included, involving 165 outcome measures with the total frequency of 1 462. These outcome measures were categorized into six domains: symptom and sign measures(23) with the frequency of 718(49.1%), TCM symptom and syndrome measures(3) with the frequency of 53(3.6%), physical examination measures(130) with the frequency of 506(34.6%), quality of life measures(4) with the frequency of 20(1.3%), long-term efficacy measures(2) with the frequency of 6(0.4%), and safety measures(3) with the frequency of 159(10.9%). Additionally, 53 studies used TCM syndrome and symptom scores as indicators of efficacy, employing eight distinct measurement tools. The RCTs involving the kidney-tonifying and blood-activating method for treating KOA had a variety of problems, such as unclear prio-ritization of outcome measures, diversity in measurement tools, absence of standardized assessment criteria for specific measures, and non-standardized usage. These problems affected the research quality and reliability. Hence, it is advisable to draw upon international expertise, improve research design, and merge TCM efficacy characteristics with clinical research to establish a core set of KOA outcome measures aligned with TCM principles.

Efficacy and Safety of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We critically evaluated the efficacy and safety of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, the Web of Science Core Collection, Chinese Biomedical Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Digital Periodicals, and Chinese Science and Technology Periodicals were searched from their inception to February 2021. Randomized controlled trials and retrospective or prospective cohort studies (CSs) comparing OLIF and TLIF for DLS were included. A meta-analysis was conducted, if possible. RESULTS: Ten studies were included in the statistical analysis. The pooled results of the CSs showed no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) in pain relief at 3 or 6 months of follow-up and functional improvement at 1 or 3 months of follow-up in DLS patients between those who had undergone OLIF versus TLIF. The pooled results of the CSs showed that OLIF could significantly improve the degree of lumbar lordosis, foraminal height, and disc height and decrease the intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, operative duration, bed rest time, and hospital length of stay (P < 0.05) compared with TLIF. The incidence of adverse events was not significantly different statistically between OLIF and TLIF. CONCLUSIONS: The results from the present study suggest that pain relief and functional improvement were not significantly different between OLIF and TLIF. Nevertheless, the use of OLIF might improve radiological outcomes and reduce intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, operative duration, bed rest duration, and hospital length of stay compared with TLIF. Additional high-quality randomized controlled trials are still required to confirm these findings.