4.5 Review

Electroacupuncture in treatment of Parkinson disease A protocol for meta-analysis and systematic review

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 100, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000023010

关键词

electroacupuncture; meta-analysis; Parkinson disease

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81774110]
  2. Autonomous Subject of Beijing University of Chinese Medicine [2180072020007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of electroacupuncture in Parkinson's disease patients through a meta-analysis. The results will comprehensively assess various outcomes to determine the effectiveness of EA in treating PD.
Background: Parkinson disease (PD) is a worldwide spread neurodegenerative disorder. Dopamine replacement therapy is currently the mainstream treatment, which can alleviate the symptoms but induces motor complications. Electroacupuncture (EA) is beneficial for PD as an alternative medicine. However, few reliable clinical trials or objective systematic reviews are available to give a verdict on the effectiveness of EA in the treatment of PD. Thus, we evaluate the evidence for EA in PD patients by conducting this meta-analysis. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Scientific and Technology Journal database, WanFang Digital Periodicals, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (SinoMed) will be systematically searched for evidence by 2 authors individually. The analysis will be conducted by RevMan 5.3 software according to Cochrane Handbook. Results: The efficacy and safety of EA for PD will be comprehensively assessed from the outcomes, including the effectiveness rate, scores of Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale, and Webster scale, superoxide dismutase, lipid peroxides, and dopamine content. Conclusion: This systematic review will provide evidence for whether EA can treatment PD. Registration information: PROSPERO CRD42019120956.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据