Objective: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) affect the quality of life of elderly individuals. Acupuncture and moxibustion are used in the clinic in China for improving LUTS symptoms due to BPH. However, there is no evidence to suggest which is the best option. We compared the efficacy of acupuncture and moxibustion to provide evidence for clinical decision-making.Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Data, and VIP databases were searched from inception to July 2020 to identify the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture and moxibustion for LUTS due to BPH. Two researchers filtered studies and extracted the information independently. This study conducted a network meta-analysis using the Bayesian random method. The interventions ranking was evaluated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).Results: We finally included 40 studies comprising 10 treating therapies and 3,655 patients with LUTS caused by BPH. In terms of the International Prostate Symptom Score, maximum urinary flow rate, and quality of life, electroacupuncture (EA) [MD = À3.6, 95% credible interval (CrI) (À5.5, À1.8), very low certainty of evidence; MD = 2.2, 95% CrI (1.1, 3.3), low certainty of evidence; MD = À1.3, 95% CrI (À2.2, À0.43), very low certainty of the evidence] may be consistently the optimal treatment compared with other interventions, with SUCRA values of 84%, 81%, and 89%, respectively.Conclusions: Of all treatments, EA may have the best efficacy with fewer adverse events for LUTS due to BPH. The quality of evidence supporting this result is low to very low certainty of the evidence due to the limitations of primary studies; thus, more highquality RCTs are needed for further evidence.

Background The World Health Organization has indicated that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may become the third leading cause of death by 2030. Acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) is an important process in clinical treatment. Recent studies have shown that Chinese medical injections (CMI) are effective against AECOPD, but the effective difference among different CMIs remains unclear. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare the therapeutic effect of various CMIs. Methods We conducted an overall, systematic literature search in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, VIP, SinoMed, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CMIs for AECOPD published up to January 2021. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Stata 13.1 and WinBUGS 14.3 were used for data analyses. Results In total, 103 RCTs involving 8767 participants and 23 CMIs were included. The results indicated that among all treatments conventional Western medical therapy (WM) plus Dengzhanxixin injection (DZXX) led to the best improvement in the clinical efficacy and the ratio of forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV 1 ) to forced vital capacity (FVC) (FEV 1 /FVC), with surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA)=80.47% and 98.55%, respectively. Moreover, Shenmai injection (SM) plus WM and Reduning injection (RDN) plus WM led to the best improvement in the FEV 1 (SUCRA=80.18%) and the ratio of forced expiratory volume in one second to the predicted value (FEV 1 %, SUCRA=87.28%). Shengmai injection (SGM) plus WM led to the most considerable shortening in the length of hospital stay (SUCRA=94.70%). Cluster analysis revealed that WM+DZXX had the most favorable response for clinical efficacy and FEV 1 , as well as clinical efficacy and FEV 1 /FVC, WM+RDN had the most favorable response for clinical efficacy and FEV 1 %, WM+SGM had the most favorable response for clinical efficacy and length of hospital stay. Conclusion WM+DZXX, WM+RDN, and WM+SGM were noted to be the optimum treatment regimens for improving in clinical efficacy, FEV 1 , FEV 1 /FVC, FEV 1 % and reducing the hospital stay length of AECOPD patients. Considering the limitations this NMA may have, the current results warrant further verification via additional high-quality studies.

To compare the efficacy of different traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) therapies for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and provide a higher level of evidence in the form of network meta-analysis (NMA) and systematic review. We searched the studies from the following databases: CNKI, VIP, WanFang, SinoMed, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from the establishment of the respective database until December 2021. Relevant studies were screened according to the pre-established inclusion criteria. The quality of the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were assessed using the risk of bias (ROB) tool and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS), respectively. R software 4.1.1 and Stata 13.1 were used for data analysis and mapping. A total of 34 studies were included in this network meta-analysis that tested 24 TCM interventions and included 3443 patients. Using cluster analysis of time to negative SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), the length of hospital stay and composite events, we found that Jinyinhua oral liquid (JYH, 120 mL) + conventional Western medicine (CWM) has the highest SUCRA value at 88.64%, 85.61% and 84.24%. The traditional meta-analysis results revealed that Qingfei Paidu decoction + CWM were significantly different compared with CWM alone for the score of clinical symptoms (MD =-0.75, 95% CI [–1.04, –0.47]). Nine studies reported 57 adverse reactions (ADRs) and 3 adverse events (ADEs) in TCM + CWM groups, and eight studies reported 33 ADRs and 8 ADEs in CWM groups. In conclusion, the combination of TCM and CWM approaches may enhance the efficacy of CWM in COVID-19 patients. Based on the NMA result, JYH (120 mL) + CWM may be a more effective treatment and deserves further investigation. However, the differences in many comparisons between TCM interventions did not reach statistical significance; therefore, further high-quality studies are required to validate these findings.

Background: Hypertension, a risk factor for cardiovascular events, is often associated with chronic kidney disease. This is called hypertensive nephropathy (HN), which negatively affects physical fitness and body mass, leading to economic burden. Traditional Chinese medicine injections (TCMIs) are common traditional Chinese-patent medicine preparations in China. There was a lack of evidence to prove which TCMIs combine with ADs (TCMIs+ADs) may be a therapeutic option for HN. Thus, we systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of various TCMIs + ADs in patients with HN.Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, and VIP information resource integration service platform databases for relevant Chinese- and English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from database inception until May 2021. Literature screening, data extraction, and quality assessment was performed by two reviewers independently but using the same criteria. We performed the effect modeling to analyze the data for all outcomes and ranked each intervention using the P-score. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis, meta-regression, and funnel plots were used to test the stability, heterogeneity, and publication bias, respectively.Results: We included 69 RCTs with 6373 patients and including six TCMIs + ADs. Network analysis indicated that the ginkgo leaf extract and dipyridamole combined with ADs (GLED + ADs) was the most efficacious in terms of 24-h urinary protein excretion [mean difference (MD) = −0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.82 to −0.58; P-score = 1] and systolic blood pressure (MD = −12.95, 95% CI: −21.03 to −4.88; P-score = 0.88), whereas the salvianolate combined with ADs (SA + ADs) showed the highest effectiveness for diastolic blood pressure (MD = −6.88, 95% CI: −10.55 to −3.21; P-score = 0.9). Based on the combined P-score of network meta-analysis results (88% and 85.26%) and sensitivity analysis results (72% and 71.54%), the biplots showed that the GLED + ADs was the most efficacious intervention in all TCMIs + ADs for primary outcomes, followed by the SA + ADs and sodium tanshinone IIA sulfonate combined with ADs (STS + ADs). There was no significant difference in terms of safety between TCMIs + ADs and ADs alone.Conclusion: Of all the TCMIs + ADs, GLED + ADs, SA + ADs, and STS + ADs may demonstrate a higher efficacy than ADs alone for HN. Weighing with the potential benefits and limitations in methodology, potential heterogeneity and outcomes, we should use various TCMIs with caution in clinical practice. Nevertheless, additional high-quality RCTs are warranted and future research should focus on the clinical value of core outcomes to confirm the effectiveness and safety of TCMIs for HN.Systematic Review Registration: clinicaltrials.gov, identifier CRD42020205358

Introduction Primary dysmenorrhea (PD) was the most common gynecological disorder, with an increasingly high prevalence worldwide. PD often accompanied other dysmenorrhea-associated symptoms to trigger exacerbations, and even cause depression and anxiety for patients. As the effective first-line medication, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have become widespread across China and combined with oral traditional Chinese patent medicines (TCPMs) for PD in clinical practice. We hope to provide better efficacy and safety evidence about oral TCPMs combined with NSAIDs (oral TCPMs+NSAIDs) for patients with PD by this network meta-analysis. Methods and analysis We will perform a Bayesian network meta-analysis of all oral TCPMs+NSAIDs for clinical diagnosis as PD. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, VIP information resource integration service platform databases, and clinical registers will be searched from the database inception to June 30, 2022 to find randomized controlled trials. Two reviewers will independently screen and check titles and abstracts and read the full text. Data extraction with the same criteria will be conducted by two researchers, including study characteristics, participant characteristics, interventions and comparators, and outcomes. We will perform the network meta-analysis by the Bayesian random method to analyze the direct and indirect comparisons. Meta-regression with multiple covariates will be conducted to find the potential heterogeneity. We will perform the sensitivity analysis to identify the potential effect on the robustness of our results. Evidence certainty of all interventions in outcomes will be identified and assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment. Funnel plots with Egger test and Begg’s test to detect the potential publication bias. Trial registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021265675.