Back

Chinese herbal medicine for varicocele in subfertile men A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

Tong, W.; Zhao, Z.; Tu, X.; He, S.; Wang, Y.; Chen, M.; Zhang, H.

2023-01-10 sexual and reproductive health
10.1101/2023.01.09.23284339 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe purpose of this protocol is to provide a updated systematic review and meta-analysis to prove the effectiveness and safety of Chinese herbal medicine in the treatment for the patients with varicocele. MethodThis protocol conforms to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) and the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. We selected qualified studies published as of May 1, 2022, and systematically searched 6 English database (Embase, Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Clinicaltrials.gov) and 5 Chinese database (China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, Wanfandata, SinoMed, and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry). At the same time, relevant reviews and a list of references included in the study were retrieved, and Epistemonikos.org, ISI Web of Science and OpenGrey were manually searched to screen any other studies not included in the previous search. There will be no language restrictions. The inclusion criteria were clinical randomized controlled trial (RCT) involving the use of traditional Chinese medicine in the treatment of varicocele. The main results were fertility rate, adverse events, semen quality and scrotal pain score after 3 months, 6 months and 1 year follow-up. Bias analysis and evaluation will be performed based on risk of bias (ROB) assessment tool provided by the Cochrane Handbook. And use GRADEpro GDT to grade, evaluate and score the quality of the evidence. Heterogeneity will be judged by I2 value. At the same time, report bias assessment, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were carried out. According to the Cochrane Manual of Systematic Evaluation of Interventions (Higgins 2011), if the data showed sufficiently high quality and some degree of similarity, we included the data for the meta-analysis. For dichotomy data, we selected an effect scale relative risk (RR) represented by a 95% confidence interval (CI). The continuous data is expressed as mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD). ResultThis study will provide high-quality evidence for the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine in the treatment of varicocele in subfertile men. ConclusionThis study will provide an effective and safe choice for Chinese herbal medicine to improve the fertility of patients with varicocele. EthicsThe data of this study are based on published studies and do not require additional ethical approval. We will publish our findings through peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO database registration number: CRD42022331218

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 4%
24.9%
2
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
11.2%
3
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
7.5%
4
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 3%
7.5%
50% of probability mass above
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 21%
5.4%
6
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.6%
7
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
8
Frontiers in Nutrition
23 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.0%
9
Frontiers in Endocrinology
53 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.9%
10
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
11
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
12
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
13
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.4%
14
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
15
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
16
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 51%
1.0%
17
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
18
Frontiers in Microbiology
375 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.9%
19
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
20
Gigabyte
60 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
21
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
22
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.7%
23
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 16%
0.7%
24
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
25
Systematic Reviews
11 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%