No abstract

Aim. This study aimed to evaluate the effects and safety of moxibustion in the management of constipation. Background. Constipation is extremely common in clinical practice and causes physical and mental pain to patients. This study aimed to evaluate the effects and safety of moxibustion in the management of constipation. Methods. Studies on moxibustion for constipation published up to November 2019 were searched in PubMed; EBSCO; EMBASE; Cochrane Library; and three Chinese databases, namely, China National Knowledge Internet, Wanfang, and China Biomedical Network. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed on the basis of the CLEAR NPT system evaluation methods of Boutron. Further meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.0 software. Results. Ten randomized controlled trials involving 760 patients were included in this study. The meta-analysis revealed that, in comparison to western medicine treatment or other Chinese medicine methods (control group), moxibustion (experimental group) had a higher total effective rate (RR = 1.30, 95% CI [1.21, 1.40], P<0.00001), and the clinical effectiveness of the experimental group was higher than that of the control group in any subgroup analysis. The first defecation time of the experimental group was shorter than that of the control group (SMD = −1.36, 95% CI [−2.03, −0.68], P<0.0001). The clinical symptom score of the patients in the experimental group was lower than that in the control group (SMD = −0.65, 95% CI [−1.00, −0.30], P=0.0003). The patients in the experimental group had higher scores on Bristol stool form scale than those in the control group (MD = 0.99, 95% CI [0.48, 1.50], P=0.0001). However, there was no obvious difference in safety between the two groups (RR = 0.38, 95% CI [0.01, 11.8], P=0.58). Conclusions. Moxibustion may have better effect than other treatments on constipation. However, it is not yet possible to assess the safety level of moxibustion therapy, and the quality of the included literature is low, so rigorous studies are warranted. Implications for Nursing and Health Policy. The focus of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of moxibustion therapy in constipation. This evaluation showed that moxibustion therapy has a good effect on constipation and provides an effective treatment for constipation patients. Whether moxibustion therapy can be used for different syndrome types deserves further discussion.

Purpose To evaluate the quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs) on alternative exercise traditions in cancer care. Methods PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Ovid, EBSCOhost, WanFang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and VIP Database were searched from their inception to June 30, 2020. The search used a combination of subject words and free words. The search terms included “Tai Chi,” “Qigong,” “Baduanjin,” “Yoga,” “Pilates,” “Cancer,” “Meta-analysis,” and “Systematic review.” Two researchers independently performed literature screening and data extraction and used AMSTAR scale and PRISMA statement to evaluate the methodology and the quality of the evidence. Results A total of 26 SR/MAs were included. The AMSTAR scale score was 5–10 points, with an average of 7.46±1.33 points. Overall, the methodological quality was considered to be moderate. The PRISMA list score was 13–24 points, with an average of 19.19±2.86 points. Among the papers evaluated, eight reports were relatively complete. A total of 15 papers indicated certain defects. A total of three papers showed relatively serious information defects. Conclusion Relative to the control group, alternative exercise traditions may be effective in improving the quality of life, anxiety, depression, distress, and fatigue of cancer patients. However, they may not necessarily improve patients’ sleep outcome, body mass index, and pain. During convalescence, cancer patients can be encouraged to start engaging in physical exercise, and professionals can develop appropriate exercise alternatives to ensure the expected effect of exercise while ensuring the safety of patients. The methodological quality of the systematic evaluations of the intervention effects of alternative exercise traditions on cancer patients is not satisfactory. Hence, focus should be directed to the improvement of the preliminary design scheme, publication status, literature retrieval, conflict of interest, and other aspects.

Background and Objective. Traditional Chinese exercise (TCE) includes a variety of training methods. At present, more researchers focus the TCE as an alternative therapy of exercise rehabilitation in patients with heart failure (HF). Although studies show that TCE is considered a new approach in cardiac rehabilitation, the method has not yet been included in the domestic and international guidelines for managing HF, suggesting that the efficacy of TCE needs to be further explored. Currently, no systematic review or meta-analysis has been conducted to assess the effects of TCE-based cardiac rehabilitation training in patients with HF. In order to address this knowledge gap, this meta-analysis aimed to systematically evaluate the effects of cardiac rehabilitation training using the TCE on motor function, heart function, and quality of life in patients with HF. Methods. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and three Chinese databases, namely, China National Knowledge Network, Wanfang, and China Biomedical Network, were searched from the time of their inceptions through August, 2021. We retrieved the studies on the application of TCE-based cardiac rehabilitation in patients with HF. Based on the standard evaluation methods of Cochrane Reviewer’s Handbook 5.1.0, two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and evaluated the methodological quality of the studies included. The RevMan 5.3 software was used for further meta-analysis. Additionally, the GRADEpro GDT web version was used to assess the quality of the evidence in these studies. Results. Nine randomized controlled trials involving 721 patients were included in this analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that the TCE (experimental group) effectively improved the patient’s motor function and endurance compared to walking or other activities (control group) (mean difference, MD = 68.23, 95% CI [54.55, 81.91]; P < 0.00001 ). From each subgroup analysis, the exercising ability of the experimental group was higher than that of the control group. The quality of life’s score in the experimental group was lower than that of the control group (MD = −9.51, 95%CI [−17.84, −1.18]; P = 0.03 ). The plasma B-type natriuretic peptide content in the experimental group was lower than that in the control group (MD = −59.77, 95%CI [−82.85, −36.7]; P < 0.00001 ). The number of hospitalizations (MD = −0.83, 95%CI [−0.98, −0.68]; P < 0.00001 ) and hospital costs in the experimental group (MD = −1.6, 95%CI [−1.89, −1.31]; P < 0.00001 ) were lower than those in the control group. However, no significant differences were observed in the left ventricular ejection fraction and maximal oxygen consumption between the two groups (MD = 1.38, 95%CI [−3.08, 5.84] and P = 0.54 ; MD = −0.04, 95%CI [−1.62, 1.54] and P = 0.96 , respectively). From the current analysis, TCE can be considered a relatively safe exercise method. According to the GRADE evaluation results on the evidence level, the studies included were of moderate quality, low quality, or very low quality. Conclusions. Our systematic review showed that TCE had potential benefits in improving patients’ cardiac function, motor function, and quality of life. Therefore, TCE might be an effective adjuvant therapy in patients with HF. However, given the inclusion of the low-quality elucidations, further rigorous studies are urgently needed to confirm these results.