Background: The impact of Tuina on neonatal jaundice is not yet comprehensively understood, and its clinical application is rather limited. This study systematically assessed the relevant literature and conducted a meta-analysis to study the influence of Tuina on neonatal jaundice and provide convincing clinical evidence for promoting its clinical application. Methods: We searched Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, CQVIP, and CBM from the establishment of the database up to July 2021. Studies that are randomized controlled trials were included. However, duplicate publications; manuscripts with no full text, incomplete information, or inability to extract data; animal experiments; and reviews and systematic reviews were excluded. STATA 15.1 was used to analyze the data. Results: The pooled results showed that compared with the treatment of neonatal jaundice solely with blue light, Tuina combined with blue light significantly improved the total effective rate and frequency of defecation on days 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and significantly decreased the traditional Chinese medicine syndrome score; the third serum total bilirubin on days 3, 4, and 7; and duration of jaundice. Moreover, the incidence of adverse events in neonatal jaundice treated with Tuina combined with blue light was significantly lower than that with blue light alone. Conclusion: Tuina combined with blue light for treating neonatal jaundice can increase the effect of clinical treatment and reduce the adverse events caused by blue light therapy. Thus, the clinical application of traditional Chinese medicine Tuina in neonatal jaundice should be further promoted.

Background Since there are currently no systematic evidence-based medical data on the efficacy and safety of PECD, this meta-analysis pooled data from studies that reported the efficacy or safety of PECD for cervical disc herniation to examine the efficacy, recurrence and safety of using PECD to treat cervical disc herniation. Methods We searched the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases for studies published from inception to July 2022. Nine nonrandomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) that reported the efficacy or safety of percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy for cervical disc herniation were included. We excluded duplicate publications, studies without full text, studies with incomplete information, studies that did not enable us to conduct data extraction, animal experiments and reviews. STATA 15.1 software was used to analyse the data. Results The proportions of excellent and good treatment results after PECD for CDH were 39% (95% CI: 31–48%) and 47% (95% CI: 34–59%), respectively. The pooled results showed that the VAS scores at 1 week post-operatively (SMD = −2.55, 95% CI: − 3.25 to − 1.85) and at the last follow-up (SMD = − 4.30, 95% CI: − 5.61 to − 3.00) after PECD for cervical disc herniation were significantly lower than the pre-operative scores. The recurrence rate of neck pain and the incidence of adverse events after PECD for cervical disc herniation were 3% (95% CI: 1–6%) and 5% (95% CI: 2–9%), respectively. Additionally, pooled results show that the operative time (SMD = − 3.22, 95% CI: − 5.21 to − 1.43) and hospital stay (SMD = − 1.75, 95% CI: − 2.67to − 0.84) were all significantly lower for PECD than for ACDF. The pooled results also showed that the proportion of excellent treatment results was significantly higher for PECD than for ACDF (OR = 2.29, 95% CI: 1.06–4.96). Conclusion PECD has a high success rate in the treatment of CHD and can relieve neck pain, and the recurrence rate and the incidence of adverse events are low. In addition, compared with ACDF, PECD has a higher rate of excellent outcomes and a lower operative time and hospital stay. PECD may be a better option for treating CHD.