RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) may have special advantages in facilitating smoking cessation, but consensus on effectiveness is lacking. We aim to comprehensively review, update, and refine current evidence on TCM effectiveness and safety. METHODS: Nine databases were searched from their inception up to 28 February 2023. Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analysis of TCM for smoking cessation were identified and retrieved. Additional databases and hand searches of RCTs from included SRs were performed for data pooling. Cochrane ROB tools and AMSTAR-2 were used to evaluate the methodological quality of RCTs and SRs, respectively. RCT data are presented as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using RevMan 5.4. RESULTS: Thirteen SRs involving 265 studies with 33081 participants were included. Among these 265 studies, 157 were duplicates (58.36%) and 52 were non-RCTs (19.62%). Combined with the remaining 56 RCTs identified through hand searches, 88 RCTs involving 12434 participants were finally included for data synthesis. All the SRs focused on acupoint stimulation, and the majority were of low or very low quality. The methodological quality of RCTs was either unclear or high risk. For continuous abstinence rate, TCM external interventions were better than placebo in 6 months to 1 year (RR=1.60; 95% CI: 1.14-2.25; I2=27%; n=5533 participants). Compared with placebo, TCM external application was effective in reducing nicotine withdrawal symptoms, and the effect was gradually stable and obvious in the fourth week (MD= -4.46; 95% CI: -5.43 - -3.49; n=165 participants). Twelve RCTs reported adverse events as outcome indicators for safety evaluation, and no serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the methodological limitations of the original studies, our review suggests that TCM intervention shows potential effectiveness on the continuous abstinence rate. Extending the intervention time can enhance the effect of TCM on nicotine withdrawal symptoms. Referred to adverse events, more data for safety evaluation are required.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Intraoperative blood salvage as a blood-saving strategy has been widely used in surgery. Considering its theoretic risk of malignant tumor cells being reinfused and the corresponding blood metastases, the safety of intraoperative blood salvage in cancer surgery remains controversial. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), we searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE to November 2017. We included only studies comparing intraoperative blood salvage with allogeneic blood transfusion. RESULTS: This meta-analysis included 9 studies with 4354 patients with 1346 patients in the intraoperative blood salvage group and 3008 patients in the allogeneic blood transfusion group. There were no significant differences in the 5-year overall survival outcome (odds ratio [OR] 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.58), 5-year disease-free survival outcome (OR 1.08; 95% CI 0.86-1.35), or 5-year recurrence rate (OR 0.86; 95% CI 0.71-1.05) between the 2 study groups. Subgroup analysis also showed no significant differences in the 5-year overall survival outcome (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.57-1.67) of hepatocellular carcinoma patients in liver transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with malignant disease, intraoperative blood salvage did not increase the tumor recurrence rate and had comparable survival outcomes with allogeneic blood transfusion.