[Re-evaluation of systematic reviews of acupuncture and moxibustion for children with cerebral palsy].

OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodological quality, report quality and evidence quality of the Meta-analysis and systematic reviews of acupuncture and moxibustion for children with cerebral palsy, aiming to provide decision-making basis for clinical treatment. METHODS: The systematic reviews and Meta-analysis of acupuncture and moxibustion for children with cerebral palsy were searched in CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, SinoMed, Cochrane Library, PubMed and EMbase. The retrieval time was from the database establishment to June 30th, 2022. AMSTAR 2 (a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews) was used to evaluate the methodological quality， and PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and Meta-analyses) was used to evaluate the report quality, and GRADE was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 14 systematic reviews were included, including 37 primary outcome indexes. According to AMSTAR 2 evaluation results, there were 4 low quality studies, 10 very low quality studies, and low scores on items 2, 4, 7, 10 and 16. PRISMA scores ranged from 15 to 25, and the main reporting problems reflected in structured abstracts, program and registration, retrieval, and funding sources, etc. According to the GRADE classification results, there were 3 high quality evidences, 7 medium quality evidences, 10 low quality evidences and 17 very low quality evidences. The main downgrading factors were limitations, imprecision and publication bias. CONCLUSION: Acupuncture and moxibustion has a certain effect for cerebral palsy in children, but the quality of methodology, reporting and evidence in the included literature is poor, and the comparison of curative effect between different acupuncture and moxibustion methods is unclear.

Effectiveness of non-pharmacological treatments for postpartum depression: an umbrella review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Non-pharmacological treatments for postpartum depression have been investigated in various systematic reviews, and their efficacy has been evaluated. However, the quality of the evidence as a whole has not been quantified. The quality of this evidence may influence the choice of interventions and even cause misleading clinical decisions. This study aims to provide an objective presentation of the methodological bias and identify treatments supported by solid evidence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: For the purpose of conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, a comprehensive search of the relevant published literature will be conducted in English databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO and Scopus, as well as in four Chinese databases: the Chinese Biomedical Databases (CBM), Wan fang database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and VIP Database (VIP). The time of publication will be limited from their inception to 31 May 2022. We will extract the following data from the included literature: title, first author, journal type of included literature, number and sample size, intervention/control measures, outcome indicators and main study outcomes. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 will be used to measure the quality of the methods. In addition, we will use the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement to evaluate the quality of the reporting, as well as the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to evaluate the quality of the evidence. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021285470.