A Systematic Review on Safety and Efficacy of Ayurvedic Interventions in Hemiplegia (Pakshaghata).

IF 3.3 Q1 INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE
Akashlal M, Pratibha P Nair, Devi R Nair, Azeem Ahmad, B Chandrasekhararao, D Sudhakar, Srikanth Narayanam, Rabinarayan Acharya
{"title":"A Systematic Review on Safety and Efficacy of Ayurvedic Interventions in Hemiplegia (<i>Pakshaghata</i>).","authors":"Akashlal M, Pratibha P Nair, Devi R Nair, Azeem Ahmad, B Chandrasekhararao, D Sudhakar, Srikanth Narayanam, Rabinarayan Acharya","doi":"10.1177/2515690X241304523","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The study's objective is to conduct a comprehensive systematic review for assessing the safety and efficacy of Ayurvedic interventions in managing hemiplegia/Pakshaghata. The study involved a search across multiple online databases and online clinical trial registries. Additionally, major Ayurveda postgraduate institutes were contacted to acquire unpublished trial data related to hemiplegia/Pakshaghata. The review covered articles published until July 2023. Two reviewers independently performed data extraction and risk of bias assessment. The risk of bias assessment utilised the RoB 2 tool for randomised trials and the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised trials. The screening process identified 28 articles from online databases and two dissertations from online repositories. However, practical challenges prevented access to grey literature from Ayurveda institutes. The 30 studies selected for this review, comprises nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs), eight non-randomised comparative trials, and thirteen pre-post studies. Quantitative analysis was unfeasible due to inadequate studies, leading to a qualitative analysis. All studies, except one, exhibited substantial bias upon risk of bias assessment. Moreover, most studies demonstrated methodological weaknesses attributed to a lack of masking, improper sampling techniques, non-validated outcome measurement tools, inadequate follow-up procedures, and confounding factors. The trials frequently did not document safety parameters, adverse events (AE), and adverse drug reactions (ADR). Current review could not definitively establish the efficacy and safety of Ayurvedic interventions in hemiplegia/Pakshaghata. Hence, the authors strongly advocate for good quality research incorporating proper methodology.</p>","PeriodicalId":15714,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence-based Integrative Medicine","volume":"30 ","pages":"2515690X241304523"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11705355/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Evidence-based Integrative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2515690X241304523","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The study's objective is to conduct a comprehensive systematic review for assessing the safety and efficacy of Ayurvedic interventions in managing hemiplegia/Pakshaghata. The study involved a search across multiple online databases and online clinical trial registries. Additionally, major Ayurveda postgraduate institutes were contacted to acquire unpublished trial data related to hemiplegia/Pakshaghata. The review covered articles published until July 2023. Two reviewers independently performed data extraction and risk of bias assessment. The risk of bias assessment utilised the RoB 2 tool for randomised trials and the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised trials. The screening process identified 28 articles from online databases and two dissertations from online repositories. However, practical challenges prevented access to grey literature from Ayurveda institutes. The 30 studies selected for this review, comprises nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs), eight non-randomised comparative trials, and thirteen pre-post studies. Quantitative analysis was unfeasible due to inadequate studies, leading to a qualitative analysis. All studies, except one, exhibited substantial bias upon risk of bias assessment. Moreover, most studies demonstrated methodological weaknesses attributed to a lack of masking, improper sampling techniques, non-validated outcome measurement tools, inadequate follow-up procedures, and confounding factors. The trials frequently did not document safety parameters, adverse events (AE), and adverse drug reactions (ADR). Current review could not definitively establish the efficacy and safety of Ayurvedic interventions in hemiplegia/Pakshaghata. Hence, the authors strongly advocate for good quality research incorporating proper methodology.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Evidence-based Integrative Medicine
Journal of Evidence-based Integrative Medicine INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE-
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
43
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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