Safety and efficacy of acupuncture for varicocele-induced male infertility: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Varicocele (VC) is a common clinical disease in andrology. Among a number of ways for VC treatment, surgery is the most common one, but the measurable benefit of surgical repair was slight. A growing exploration of complementary therapies has been conducted in clinical research on acupuncture for VC, but there is no relevant systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for VC. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: All relevant publications published from database inception through August 2022 will be searched in three English-language databases (Embase, CENTRAL, MEDLINE) and four Chinese-language databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Science and Technology Journal Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database and Wanfang Data). Randomised controlled trials in English and Chinese concerned with acupuncture for patients with VC will be included. The input clinical data will be processed by the Review Manager software (RevMan). The literature will be appraised with the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system (GRADE system) will be used to evaluate the quality of evidence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is a secondary study based on clinical studies so it does not relate to any individual patient information or infringe the rights of participants. Hence no ethical approval is required. The results will be reported in peer-reviewed journals or disseminated at relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022316005.

Quality of Evidence Supporting the Role of Tripterygium Glycosides for the Treatment of Diabetic Kidney Disease: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

Background: Tripterygium glycosides (TG) is widely used in the treatment of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) in China. To systematically assess and synthesize the available evidence, we present an overview of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) on the topic of TG interventions for DKD. Methods: SRs/MAs on TG interventions for DKD were comprehensively searched in seven databases. Methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality, and quality of evidence were assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Risk of Bias in Systematic (ROBIS) scale, the list of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), as well as the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Results: This overview includes 13 SRs/MAs that use quantitative calculations to comprehensively assess various outcomes in TG interventions for DKD. The methodological quality, reporting quality, and risk of bias of SRs/MAs, and the quality of evidence for outcome indicators are unsatisfactory. Limitations of the included SRs/MAs consist in the lack of essential procedures such as protocol registration, screening of duplicate study, provision of the list of excluded studies, and assessment of publication bias. Besides, the reliance on small samples for quantitative synthesis of effect sizes also constitutes an important limitation. Conclusion: TG may be a potential complementary treatment modality to DKD therapy. However, this conclusion must be treated with caution as the quality of the evidence provided by SRs/MAs is generally low.