Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on Manual Therapy for the Treatment of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Mengdie Yan, Yunzhou Shi, Yanqin Liu, Yue Shi, Mengzhu Zhang, Dongnan Chen, Senlin Ye, Shiyin Li, Yue Feng
{"title":"Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on Manual Therapy for the Treatment of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease","authors":"Mengdie Yan, Yunzhou Shi, Yanqin Liu, Yue Shi, Mengzhu Zhang, Dongnan Chen, Senlin Ye, Shiyin Li, Yue Feng","doi":"10.1055/s-0043-1777296","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objective  The objective of our study was to systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of manual therapy in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), providing a reference value for clinical decision-making. Method  Studies of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of manual therapy in patients with GERD were searched through Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, VIP China Science and Technology Journal Database, China Biology Medicine Database, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, OVID Medline, and Embase. Two researchers independently reviewed the literature, extracted data, and performed a risk of bias analysis using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool, and conducted meta-analysis analysis and publication bias evaluation, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool 26 was used to rate the caliber of the data in this meta-analysis. Results  This study included 11 RCTs. Meta-analysis showed that the manual therapy group had a higher total effective rate (odds ratio [OR] = 4.63, 95% confidence interval [CI; 3.01, 7.14], p  < 0.00001) and better Reflux Disease Questionnaire scores {weighted mean difference (WMD) = −1.59, 95% CI [−2.85, −0.33], p  = 0.01} than the control group. The subgroup analysis showed significant differences in improving the total effective rate in manual therapy versus Western medicine, manual therapy versus Chinese medicine decoction, manual therapy + Western medicine versus Western medicine, and manual therapy + conventional treatment versus conventional treatment groups. Among the 11 trials, 5 reported adverse events, and all RCTs had the possibility of publication bias. Subgroup analysis shows that the differences in age could significantly influence heterogeneity; The GRADE analysis revealed that the overall quality of evidence for all outcome indicators was low and did not support our recommendation for the outcome. Conclusion  Manual therapy is more effective than medication therapy alone in relieving GERD symptoms. Furthermore, conventional therapy combined with manual therapy was found to be even more effective. Hence, it is crucial to consider these findings when applying manual therapy to GERD patients to enhance treatment outcomes. Future studies must address issues such as study quality, treatment duration, and generalizability.","PeriodicalId":204577,"journal":{"name":"Chinese medicine and natural products","volume":"17 1","pages":"e143 - e157"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese medicine and natural products","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1777296","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Objective  The objective of our study was to systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of manual therapy in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), providing a reference value for clinical decision-making. Method  Studies of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of manual therapy in patients with GERD were searched through Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, VIP China Science and Technology Journal Database, China Biology Medicine Database, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, OVID Medline, and Embase. Two researchers independently reviewed the literature, extracted data, and performed a risk of bias analysis using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool, and conducted meta-analysis analysis and publication bias evaluation, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool 26 was used to rate the caliber of the data in this meta-analysis. Results  This study included 11 RCTs. Meta-analysis showed that the manual therapy group had a higher total effective rate (odds ratio [OR] = 4.63, 95% confidence interval [CI; 3.01, 7.14], p  < 0.00001) and better Reflux Disease Questionnaire scores {weighted mean difference (WMD) = −1.59, 95% CI [−2.85, −0.33], p  = 0.01} than the control group. The subgroup analysis showed significant differences in improving the total effective rate in manual therapy versus Western medicine, manual therapy versus Chinese medicine decoction, manual therapy + Western medicine versus Western medicine, and manual therapy + conventional treatment versus conventional treatment groups. Among the 11 trials, 5 reported adverse events, and all RCTs had the possibility of publication bias. Subgroup analysis shows that the differences in age could significantly influence heterogeneity; The GRADE analysis revealed that the overall quality of evidence for all outcome indicators was low and did not support our recommendation for the outcome. Conclusion  Manual therapy is more effective than medication therapy alone in relieving GERD symptoms. Furthermore, conventional therapy combined with manual therapy was found to be even more effective. Hence, it is crucial to consider these findings when applying manual therapy to GERD patients to enhance treatment outcomes. Future studies must address issues such as study quality, treatment duration, and generalizability.
关于徒手疗法治疗胃食管反流病的随机对照试验的系统性回顾和元分析
摘要 目的 系统评价手法治疗胃食管反流病(GERD)的临床疗效和安全性,为临床决策提供参考价值。方法 通过中国知网、万方数据库、VIP 中国科技期刊数据库、中国生物医学数据库、PubMed、The Cochrane Library、OVID Medline 和 Embase 等数据库检索评价手法治疗胃食管反流病患者疗效的随机对照试验(RCT)。两名研究人员独立审阅文献、提取数据,使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险评估工具进行偏倚风险分析,并进行荟萃分析和发表偏倚评估,使用推荐、评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)工具 26 对本荟萃分析中的数据进行评分。结果 本研究包括 11 项研究性试验。荟萃分析表明,与对照组相比,手法治疗组的总有效率更高(几率比 [OR] = 4.63,95% 置信区间 [CI;3.01,7.14],p < 0.00001),反流病问卷评分更好{加权平均差 (WMD) = -1.59, 95% CI [-2.85, -0.33],p = 0.01}。亚组分析显示,手法治疗组与西药组、手法治疗组与中药煎煮组、手法治疗+西药组与西药组、手法治疗+常规治疗组与常规治疗组在提高总有效率方面存在显著差异。在这11项试验中,有5项报告了不良事件,所有的RCT都存在发表偏倚的可能性。亚组分析表明,年龄的差异会显著影响异质性;GRADE分析表明,所有结果指标的总体证据质量较低,不支持我们对结果的建议。结论 手法治疗在缓解胃食管反流症状方面比单纯药物治疗更有效。此外,研究还发现传统疗法与徒手疗法相结合的效果更好。因此,在对胃食管反流病患者应用徒手疗法时,必须考虑这些研究结果,以提高治疗效果。未来的研究必须解决研究质量、治疗时间和可推广性等问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信