A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of turmeric in the treatment of digestive disorders.

Turmeric has been gaining popularity as a treatment option for digestive disorders, although a rigorous synthesis of efficacy has not been conducted. This study aimed to summarize the evidence for the efficacy and safety of turmeric in the treatment of digestive disorders, including inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), dyspepsia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and peptic ulcers. Literature searches were conducted in Medline, EMBASE, AMED, the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials, and Dissertation Abstracts from inception to November 15, 2021. Dual independent screening of citations and full texts was conducted and studies meeting inclusion criteria were retained: randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative observational studies evaluating turmeric use in people of any age with one of the digestive disorders of interest. Extraction of relevant data and risk of bias assessments were performed by two reviewers independently. Meta-analysis was not conducted due to high heterogeneity. From 1136 citations screened, 26 eligible studies were retained. Most studies were assessed to have a high risk of bias, and many had methodological limitations. Descriptive summaries suggest that turmeric is safe, with possible efficacy in patients with IBD or IBS, but its effects were inconsistent for other conditions. The efficacy of turmeric in digestive disorders remains unclear due to the high risk of bias and methodological limitations of the included studies. Future studies should be designed to include larger sample sizes, use rigorous statistical methods, employ core outcome sets, and adhere to reporting guidance for RCTs of herbal interventions to facilitate more meaningful comparisons and robust conclusions.

A scoping review of network meta-analyses assessing the efficacy and safety of complementary and alternative medicine interventions.

BACKGROUND: Network meta-analysis (NMA) has rapidly grown in use during the past decade for the comparison of healthcare interventions. While its general use in the comparison of conventional medicines has been studied previously, to our awareness, its use to assess complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) has not been studied. A scoping review of the literature was performed to identify systematic reviews incorporating NMAs involving one or more CAM interventions. METHODS: An information specialist executed a multi-database search (e.g., MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane), and two reviewers performed study selection and data collection. Information on publication characteristics, diseases studied, interventions compared, reporting transparency, outcomes assessed, and other parameters were extracted from each review. RESULTS: A total of 89 SR/NMAs were included. The largest number of NMAs was conducted in China (39.3%), followed by the United Kingdom (12.4%) and the United States (9.0%). Reviews were published between 2010 and 2018, with the majority published between 2015 and 2018. More than 90 different CAM therapies appeared at least once, and the median number per NMA was 2 (IQR 1-4); 20.2% of reviews consisted of only CAM therapies. Dietary supplements (51.1%) and vitamins and minerals (42.2%) were the most commonly studied therapies, followed by electrical stimulation (31.1%), herbal medicines (24.4%), and acupuncture and related treatments (22.2%). A diverse set of conditions was identified, the most common being various forms of cancer (11.1%), osteoarthritis of the hip/knee (7.8%), and depression (5.9%). Most reviews adequately addressed a majority of the PRISMA NMA extension items; however, there were limitations in indication of an existing review protocol, exploration of network geometry, and exploration of risk of bias across studies, such as publication bias. CONCLUSION: The use of NMA to assess the effectiveness of CAM interventions is growing rapidly. Efforts to identify priority topics for future CAM-related NMAs and to enhance methods for CAM comparisons with conventional medicine are needed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/35658.

A scoping review of the evidence for efficacy of acupuncture in companion animals.

Acupuncture has become increasingly popular in veterinary medicine. Within the scientific literature there is debate regarding its efficacy. Due to the complex nature of acupuncture, a scoping review was undertaken to identify and categorize the evidence related to acupuncture in companion animals (dogs, cats, and horses). Our search identified 843 relevant citations. Narrative reviews represented the largest proportion of studies (43%). We identified 179 experimental studies and 175 case reports/case series that examined the efficacy of acupuncture. Dogs were the most common subjects in the experimental trials. The most common indication for use was musculoskeletal conditions, and the most commonly evaluated outcome categories among experimental trials were pain and cardiovascular parameters. The limited number of controlled trials and the breadth of indications for use, outcome categories, and types of acupuncture evaluated present challenges for future systematic reviews or meta-analyses. There is a need for high-quality randomized controlled trials addressing the most common clinical uses of acupuncture, and using consistent and clinically relevant outcomes, to inform conclusions regarding the efficacy of acupuncture in companion animals.