Background: Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a common urogenital disease. Moxibustion is a complementary treatment option for CP/CPPS. This systematic review will assess the efficacy and safety of moxibustion as a sole or add-on therapy for CP/CPPS. Methods: We will retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of moxibustion for CP/CPPS from the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, VIP, Chinese Biomedical Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Wanfang Data, Chinese Medicine Database System, Google Scholar, Clinicaltrials.gov, and China Clinical Trial Registry from their inception to March 9, 2019, without language restrictions. RCTs comparing moxibustion with active drugs or moxibustion + drugs with these same drugs alone will be included. Primary outcomes will be the change in the total score of the National Institutes of Health's Chronic Prostatic Inflammatory States Index (NIH-CPSI) after moxibustion treatment. Secondary outcomes will include the scores of the individual NIH-CPSI domains, response to treatment of CP/CPPS, leucocyte and phosphatidylcholine corpuscle count in prostatic fluid, incidence of adverse events (AEs), and incidence of moxibustion-related AEs. The Cochrane risk of bias tool will be used for evaluating the risk of bias of individual trials. Heterogeneity will be detected by the Cochran Q test and I-square test. A random-effects model will be used to pool data in the meta-analysis. Risk ratio and weighted or standardized mean difference will be used as the effect measures. Three sets of subgroup analyses will be performed to explore the sources of heterogeneity. Where appropriate, we will assess the likelihood of publication bias based on funnel plots and quantitative tests. Results: This study will produce the systematic review evidence regarding moxibustion for treating CP/CPPS based on current RCTs. Conclusion: This study will provide a clear basis for understanding the efficacy and adverse reactions of moxibustion treatment for CP/CPPS. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019121338.

While the majority of the technologies developed for energy storage are macrosized, the reactions involved in energy storage, such as diffusion, ionic transport, and surface‐based reactions, occur on the microscale. In light of this, microfluidics with the ability to manipulate such reactions and fluids on the micrometer scale has emerged as an interesting platform for the development of energy storage systems. Herein, the advances in utilizing microfluidic technologies in energy storage and release systems are reviewed in terms of four aspects. First, miniaturized microfluidic devices to store various forms of energy such as electrochemical, biochemical, and solar energy with unique architectures and enhanced performances are discussed. Second, novel energy materials with the desired geometries and characteristics that can be fabricated via microfluidic techniques are reviewed. Third, applications enabled by such microfluidic energy storage and release systems, particularly focusing on medical, environmental, and modeling purposes, are presented. Lastly, some remaining problems and challenges and possible future works in this field are suggested.

Background:Needling and ibuprofen are often used clinically to treat primary dysmenorrhea (PD). However, the difference between the efficacy and safety of the treatment of PD is not clear. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of simple-needling for PD patients through a comparison with ibuprofen.Methods:A comprehensive search of 7 electronic databases and relevant medical journals, from the establishment of the publication to December 2020. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that met the inclusion criteria, and a meta-analysis was performed with the Review Manager version (RevMan version 5.3).Results:Twenty three RCTs were included. The meta-analysis reported that simple-needling groups had better than ibuprofen groups on cure rate (relative risk = 2.29, 95% CI [1.96, 2.68], P < .00001) and total effective rate (relative risk = 1.24, 95% CI [1.19, 1.29], P < .00001) and VAS score (MD = −1.24, 95% CI [−1.92, −0.55], P = .0004). Seven studies reported adverse events, of which 4 studies had mild adverse events.Conclusion:Simple-needling is superior to ibuprofen treatment in terms of clinical efficacy and improvement of pain symptoms. A small number of studies reported whether simple-needling produced adverse events, so there is not enough evidence to support the safety of simple-needling in the treatment of PD.PROSPERO registration number:CRD42021233403