Efficacy and safety of Ayurveda interventions for Sinusitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT Objectives To provide a broad evaluation of the efficacy and safety of Ayurveda interventions (procedural and non-procedural) for the management of sinusitis, and also of the relative efficacy and safety of different Ayurveda therapies for Sinusitis. Methods Five electronic databases for published research articles, three databases for the unpublished doctoral thesis, clinical trial registries, and hand searches were done till August 2020. All comparative clinical trials recruiting sinusitis patients of any age group, receiving Ayurveda intervention, regardless of forms, dosages, and ingredients, for not less than one week were included. The data extraction and the risk of bias(RoB) assessment were done by two reviewers independently. Results A total of 2824 records were identified, of which 09 randomized parallel arms trials met inclusion criteria. No studies were found comparing Ayurveda versus placebo or non-Ayurveda interventions. Combined Ayurveda therapy (CT) was statistically more beneficial compared with either procedural or non-procedural Ayurveda therapy alone in reducing symptoms nasal discharge (standardized MD −0.71, 95% CI −1.16 to −0.26, I 2 58%, 210 participants) and headache (standardized MD −0.44, 95% CI −0.86 to −0.02, I 2 56%, 218 participants), however, no significant difference was found in reducing symptoms nasal obstruction and loss of smell. No numerical data related to the safety of Ayurveda intervention was found in included trials. Because, included trials(09) were having ‘high’ to ‘unclear’ overall bias, sub-standard methodology, and heterogeneity in results, the overall findings need to be interpreted cautiously. Conclusions Although individual studies appeared to produce positive results, very low certainty of total effect(downgraded twice for RoB, once for inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision each) hindered to arrive at any conclusion regarding efficacy or safety of Ayurveda interventions for sinusitis. There is a need for well-designed-executed-reported clinical studies on clinically relevant outcomes. PROSPERO registration number RD42018103995 ARTICLE SUMMARY Strength and limitations of this study This is the first systematic review to provide the status of available evidence on the efficacy and safety of Ayurveda interventions for sinusitis. The search strategy was comprehensive, all the relevant sources were searched for published as well as unpublished research works. This systematic review has a broad review question, which compromises its eternal validity. The certainty of the overall effect is ‘very low’ due to ‘unclear’ to ‘high’ overall risk of bias, lack of validated outcome measures, inconsistency in results with wide CIs, small sample sizes, incomplete reporting, etc.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,017 | 0,032 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,024 | 0,038 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».