Acupuncture and safety for post-stroke hiccups: An overview of systematic reviews

Methods: Four international electronic databases (Cochrane database, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science) and four Chinese electronic databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang database, SinoMed database and VIP database) were searched from their creation to February 4, 2023. Search terms such as “Acupuncture”, “Hiccup”, “Stroke” and “Meta analysis” were used. Data extraction and analysis: The risk of bias, quality of reporting and evidence for SRs were assessed by the risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool, the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA 2020), and the quality of evidence for outcome measures by recommending grading, assessment, development and Evaluation (GRADE) for assessment. Two reviewers independently performed data extraction and analysis, and the degree of agreement was scored using the κ index. Results: Seven SRs met the inclusion criteria. In PRISMA 2020 reporting quality assessment, there were missing key reporting items and incomplete reporting of other items in the topics of structured abstracts, protocols and registrations, search strategies, risk of bias, data extraction, analysis templates and codes, and conflicts of interest. All SRs were rated as high risk of bias based on the ROBIS tool. According to the GRADE system, the results were all rated as low-quality evidence. Limitations of the original trial and publication bias topped the list of downgrading factors, followed by inconsistency and imprecision.

方法：检索建库至2023年2月4日的4个国际电子数据库（Cochrane数据库（Cochrane database）、PubMed、Embase、Web of Science）及4个中文电子数据库（中国知网（China National Knowledge Infrastructure）、万方数据库（Wanfang database）、中国生物医学文献数据库（SinoMed database）与维普数据库（VIP database）），检索词包括“针刺（Acupuncture）”“呃逆（Hiccup）”“脑卒中（Stroke）”及“Meta分析（Meta analysis）”。数据提取与分析：采用系统评价偏倚风险工具（ROBIS，risk of bias in systematic reviews）评估系统评价（SRs）的偏倚风险，采用系统评价和Meta分析优先报告条目（PRISMA 2020，preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses）评估报告质量，并采用推荐分级、评估、制定与评价（GRADE，grading, assessment, development and Evaluation）体系对结局指标的证据质量进行评估。由2名评价员独立开展数据提取与分析，采用κ系数（κ index）评定其一致性程度。结果：共纳入7篇符合纳入标准的系统评价。在PRISMA 2020报告质量评价中，结构化摘要、方案与注册、检索策略、偏倚风险、数据提取、分析模板与代码及利益冲突等模块均存在关键报告条目缺失及其他条目报告不完整的问题。经ROBIS工具评估，所有纳入的系统评价均被评为高偏倚风险。依据GRADE体系，所有结局指标的证据质量均被评为低质量证据。原始研究局限性与发表偏倚为最主要的降级因素，其次为结果不一致性与精确性不足。

搜集汇总

背景与挑战

背景概述

该数据集是关于针灸治疗中风后呃逆安全性的系统评价综述，发布于2023年11月，包含对八个数据库的搜索结果和七个系统评价的分析。研究使用ROBIS、PRISMA 2020和GRADE工具评估，发现报告质量不足、高风险偏倚和低质量证据，主要受原始试验局限性和发表偏倚影响。数据集提供多个附录文件，涵盖方法学和质量评估细节，适用于针灸和中风后呃逆研究领域。