Warm needle acupuncture for osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Warm needle acupuncture (WA) is considered a potential intervention in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA). PURPOSE: To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of WA in the treatment of OA. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis METHODS: Fourteen databases were searched from their inception until May 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of WA for treating OA were identified. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation program were used to assess all included RCTs. RESULTS: A total of 66 RCTs met the inclusion criteria for this review. Most of the included studies had an unclear risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence was very low. Twenty-four RCTs compared the effects of WA with those of oral drug therapies. Meta-analysis showed superior effects of WA for the total effective rate (risk ratio (RR): 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.17 to 1.27, I2 = 26%, p < 0.001, 24 studies, n = 2278), pain, and function. Eight RCTs compared the effects of WA+drug therapy, and meta-analysis showed favorable effects for the total effective rate (RR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.18 to 1.35, I2 =0%, p < 0.001, 8 studies, n = 646). Eight RCTs compared the effects of WA and intra-articular sodium hyaluronate (IASH) injection on OA and found equivalent effects of WA on the symptoms of OA. Twenty-eight RCTs compared the effects of WA+IASH injection with those of IASH injection, and meta-analysis showed superior effects of WA+IASH in terms of the total effective rate (RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.19, I2 =27.3%, p < 0.001, 25 studies, n = 2208), pain, and function. None of the RCTs reported serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: WA may have some distinct advantages in the treatment of OA. However, well-designed RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed.

A scoping review on biomedical journal peer review guides for reviewers.

BACKGROUND: Peer review is widely used in academic fields to assess a manuscript's significance and to improve its quality for publication. This scoping review will assess existing peer review guidelines and/or checklists intended for reviewers of biomedical journals and provide an overview on the review guidelines. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) databases were searched for review guidelines from the date of inception until February 19, 2021. There was no date restriction nor article type restriction. In addition to the database search, websites of journal publishers and non-publishers were additionally hand-searched. RESULTS: Of 14,633 database publication records and 24 website records, 65 publications and 14 websites met inclusion criteria for the review (78 records in total). From the included records, a total of 1,811 checklist items were identified. The items related to Methods, Results, and Discussion were found to be the highly discussed in reviewer guidelines. CONCLUSION: This review identified existing literature on peer review guidelines and provided an overview of the current state of peer review guides. Review guidelines were varying by journals and publishers. This calls for more research to determine the need to use uniform review standards for transparent and standardized peer review. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this study has been registered at Research Registry (www.researchregistry.com): reviewregistry881.