To date, the literature directly comparing early carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and delayed CEA in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (CS) is limited. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early CEA and delayed CEA in patients with symptomatic CS by performing a meta-analysis.
The PubMed, Cochrane Library (last searched in May 2020) and relevant websites such as Web of Science and EMBASE (1990 to May 2020) were searched. All meta-analyses of eligible results were conducted using the STATA version 12.0 (Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas, USA).
A total of 7 articles were included in the study hailing from the New Scotland, Chicago, Sweden, UK, Italy, and France. In this study, the early CEA meant that the procedure was performed within the first 14 days or first 30 days. And the delayed CEA meant the procedure was performed more than 14 days or 30 days after the symptom occurrence. Referring to the latter early CEA group and delayed CEA group, there were three publications. The results illustrated that the early CEA group was not associated with a higher incidence of stroke (OR = 0.77, 95 % CI: 0.273-2.170; P = 0.620). And no statistic difference was found on the incidence of postoperative 30-day mortality and stroke or mortality. Meanwhile, referring to the former early CEA group and delayed CEA group, there were six articles. The results demonstrated that the early CEA group was associated with a higher rate of postoperative 30-day mortality (RD = 0.010, 95 % CI: 0.002 to 0.019; P = 0.022).
The meta-analysis of these related studies suggests that, compared to the delayed CEA group, the early CEA performed in patients with the acute post stroke phase resulted in a higher risk of postoperative mortality. Therefore, the delayed CEA was safer than early CEA for patients with symptomatic CS.

Carotid endarterectomy should be performed early or delayed in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis?

To date, the literature directly comparing the translabyrinthine approach and retrosigmoid approach in the operation of patients with vestibular schwannoma was limited. We aimed to evaluate postoperative complications between translabyrinthine approach and retrosigmoid approach for treating vestibular schwannoma patients.
Potential publications were selected from PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library. Gray relevant studies were manually searched. We set the searching time spanning from the creation date of electronic engines to February 2020. STATA version 12.0 was exerted to process the pooled data.
A total of 9 literature included in the study, involving 2429 patients, hails from the Germany, USA, Canada, Italy, and France. Of these 2429 patients with vestibular schwannoma, there were 1628 cases from the translabyrinthine approach group versus 801 cases from the retrosigmoid approach group. The results demonstrated that the translabyrinthine approach group was associated with a lower rate of tinnitus (OR = 2.687; 95 %CI, 1.167-6.191; P = 0.02) and cranial nerve deficit (OR = 2.946; 95 %CI, 1.562-5.557; P = 0.001). And the translabyrinthine approach group was associated with a higher total resection rate (OR = 0.246; 95 %CI (0.071-0.848); P = 0.026). However, no statistic differences were found in the incidence of the near total (OR = 0.751; P = 0.351), subtotal resection (OR = 3.664; P = 0.109), postoperative facial nerve dysfunctions (OR, 0.763; P = 0.626), postoperative meningitis (OR = 2.7; P = 0.279), cerebrospinal fluid leak (OR = 1.225; P = 0.777), postoperative headache (OR = 1.412; P = 0.339), ophthalmic complications (OR = 0.87; P = 0.59), and vascular complications (OR = 2.501; P = 0.139).
Based on current evidence, the translabyrinthine approach was associated with a higher rate of total resection and a lower rate of the tinnitus and cranial nerve deficit. But the risk of cranial nerve deficit was clearly affected by the preoperative status. And a translabyrintine approach could imply a complete sensorineural hearing loss, which contribute to the lower rate of postoperative tinnitus. Consequently, more evidence-based researches are needed to supplement this opinion.

Comparison of translabyrinthine and retrosigmoid approach for treating vestibular schwannoma: A meta-analysis.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a functional bowel disease characterized by abdominal pain or discomfort associated with altered bowel habits. Several clinical studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of acupuncture and moxibustion for IBS. Many systematic reviews of acupuncture and moxibustion for IBS have been published in recent years, but their results are not entirely consistent.
To evaluate the methodological, reporting, and evidence quality of systematic reviews of acupuncture and moxibustion for IBS.
Systematic reviews of acupuncture and moxibustion for IBS published before February 20, 2023 were searched in eight databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, and China Biology Medicine. The keywords used for literature search were acupuncture, moxibustion, systematic review, meta-analysis, and irritable bowel syndrome.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of acupuncture and moxibustion for IBS were included.
Relevant information was independently extracted by two investigators. The A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020), and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) were used to evaluate the methodological quality, reporting quality and evidence quality, respectively.
A total of 342 studies were retrieved and 15 systematic reviews were included. The results of AMSTAR 2 showed low methodological quality in 2 studies and very low methodological quality in the remaining 13 studies, with main issues being failure to register a protocol, incomplete search strategy, not providing a list of excluded studies, incomplete consideration of the risk of bias in the included studies, and a failure to assess the publication bias. The results of PRISMA 2020 showed seriously deficient reporting quality of 2 studies, somewhat deficient reporting quality of 12 studies, and relatively complete reporting quality of 1 study, with the main problems being lack of a complete search strategy, non-availability of a list of excluded studies with justification for their exclusion, not conducting heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses, not evaluating the credibility of the evidence, and not registering the protocol. The results of GRADE showed that the quality of the evidence is low or very low.
Most included systematic reviews interpreted findings to suggest that acupuncture and moxibustion have benefits for IBS. However, there is a need to improve the methodological, reporting and evidence quality of the systematic reviews. Larger, multicenter, rigorously designed randomized controlled trials and high-quality systematic reviews are required to obtain more robust evidence.
Ma YY, Hao Z, Chen ZY, Shen YX, Liu HR, Wu HG, Bao CH. Acupuncture and moxibustion for irritable bowel syndrome: An umbrella systematic review. J Integr Med. 2024; 22(1): 22-31.

Acupuncture and moxibustion for irritable bowel syndrome: An umbrella systematic review.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to spread worldwide. Integrated Chinese and Western medicine have had some successes in treating COVID-19.
This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of three traditional Chinese medicine drugs and three herbal formulas (3-drugs-3-formulas) in patients with COVID-19.
Relevant studies were identified from 12 electronic databases searched from their establishment to April 7, 2022.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs and cohort studies that evaluated the effects of 3-drugs-3-formulas for COVID-19. The treatment group was treated with one of the 3-drugs-3-formulas plus conventional treatment. The control group was treated with conventional treatment.
Two evaluators screened and selected literature independently, then extracted basic information and assessed risk of bias. The treatment outcome measures were duration of main symptoms, hospitalization time, aggravation rate and mortality. RevMan 5.4 was used to analyze the pooled results reported as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous data and risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI for dichotomous data.
Forty-one studies with a total of 13,260 participants were identified. Our analysis suggests that compared with conventional treatment, the combination of 3-drugs-3-formulas might shorten duration of fever (MD = -1.39; 95% CI: -2.19 to -0.59; P < 0.05), cough (MD = -1.57; 95% CI: -2.16 to -0.98; P < 0.05) and fatigue (MD = -1.36; 95% CI: -2.21 to -0.51; P < 0.05), decrease length of hospital stay (MD = -2.62; 95% CI -3.52 to -1.72; P < 0.05), the time for nucleic acid conversion (MD = -2.92; 95% CI: -4.26 to -1.59; P < 0.05), aggravation rate (RR = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.64; P < 0.05) and mortality (RR = 0.34; 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.62; P < 0.05), and increase the recovery rate of chest computerized tomography manifestations (RR = 1.22; 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.3; P < 0.05) and total effectiveness (RR = 1.24; 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.42; P < 0.05).
The 3-drugs-3-formulas can play an active role in treating all stages of COVID-19. No severe adverse events related to 3-drugs-3-formulas were observed. Hence, 3-drugs-3-formulas combined with conventional therapies have effective therapeutic value for COVID-19 patients. Further long-term high-quality studies are essential to demonstrate the clinical benefits of each formula. Please cite this article as: You LZ, Dai QQ, Zhong XY, Yu DD, Cui HR, Kong YF, Zhao MZ, Zhang XY, Xu QQ, Guan ZY, Wei XX, Zhang XC, Han SJ, Liu WJ, Chen Z, Zhang XY, Zhao C, Jin YH, Shang HC. Clinical evidence of three traditional Chinese medicine drugs and three herbal formulas for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the Chinese population. J Integr Med. 2023; 21(5): 441-454.

Clinical evidence of three traditional Chinese medicine drugs and three herbal formulas for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the Chinese population.

Papers