PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: There is increasing interest worldwide in using alternative and complementary approaches for treating male infertility. This interest has spawned a multitude of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The aim of this Umbrella review was to consolidate the available evidence regarding the effect of complementary and alternative medicine on male infertility to inform clinical decision-making processes.
UNASSIGNED: A comprehensive search was conducted to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses pertaining to the effects of complementary and alternative medicine on male infertility. This search encompassed various databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, Proquest, Google Scholar, SID, EMBASE, Magiran, Cochrane Library, Iranmedex, ScienceDirect, SAGE. Subsequently, two researchers independently extracted the data from the selected meta-analyses and systematic reviews, and evaluated their methodological quality using the assessment of multiple systematic reviews 2 (AMSTAR2).
UNASSIGNED: This analysis encompassed 11 studies, with four originating from Iran, two from Korea and five from China. The results regarding the effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicine are controversial, indicating a need for further research. The methodological quality of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses appraised by AMSTAR 2 was rated as low or critically low. This assessment is attributed to inadequate examination of publication biases in the reviews and a lack of discussion regarding the effect of risk of bias.
UNASSIGNED: The existing evidence regarding the effectiveness of alternative and complementary medicine in addressing male infertility is limited. Furthermore, the overall methodological quality of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses may have been underestimated as the use of AMSTAR2 appears to be a more precise appraisal instrument compared to its predecessor.
UNASSIGNED: A comprehensive search was conducted to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses pertaining to the effects of complementary and alternative medicine on male infertility. This search encompassed various databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, Proquest, Google Scholar, SID, EMBASE, Magiran, Cochrane Library, Iranmedex, ScienceDirect, SAGE. Subsequently, two researchers independently extracted the data from the selected meta-analyses and systematic reviews, and evaluated their methodological quality using the assessment of multiple systematic reviews 2 (AMSTAR2).
UNASSIGNED: This analysis encompassed 11 studies, with four originating from Iran, two from Korea and five from China. The results regarding the effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicine are controversial, indicating a need for further research. The methodological quality of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses appraised by AMSTAR 2 was rated as low or critically low. This assessment is attributed to inadequate examination of publication biases in the reviews and a lack of discussion regarding the effect of risk of bias.
UNASSIGNED: The existing evidence regarding the effectiveness of alternative and complementary medicine in addressing male infertility is limited. Furthermore, the overall methodological quality of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses may have been underestimated as the use of AMSTAR2 appears to be a more precise appraisal instrument compared to its predecessor.
摘要：
■世界范围内对使用替代和补充方法治疗男性不育越来越感兴趣。这种兴趣催生了大量已发表的系统评价和荟萃分析。这项Umbrella审查的目的是巩固有关补充和替代医学对男性不育的影响的现有证据，以告知临床决策过程。
■进行了全面的搜索，以确定有关补充和替代医学对男性不育的影响的系统评价和荟萃分析。此搜索包含各种数据库，包括MEDLINE，CINAHL,PubMed,Scopus,Proquest,谷歌学者，SID,EMBASE,马吉兰,科克伦图书馆,Iranmedex,ScienceDirect,Sage.随后，两名研究人员从选定的荟萃分析和系统评价中独立提取数据，并使用多重系统评价2(AMSTAR2)评估其方法学质量。
■这项分析涵盖了11项研究，其中四人来自伊朗，两个来自韩国，五个来自中国。关于补充和替代医学的有效性的结果是有争议的，这表明需要进一步研究。AMSTAR2评估的系统评价和荟萃分析的方法学质量被评为低或极低。此评估归因于评论中对出版物偏见的审查不足，以及缺乏关于偏见风险影响的讨论。
■关于替代和补充医学在解决男性不育方面的有效性的现有证据是有限的。此外，已发表的系统评价和荟萃分析的总体方法学质量可能被低估,因为与之前的评估工具相比,AMSTAR2的使用似乎是一种更精确的评估工具.
■进行了全面的搜索，以确定有关补充和替代医学对男性不育的影响的系统评价和荟萃分析。此搜索包含各种数据库，包括MEDLINE，CINAHL,PubMed,Scopus,Proquest,谷歌学者，SID,EMBASE,马吉兰,科克伦图书馆,Iranmedex,ScienceDirect,Sage.随后，两名研究人员从选定的荟萃分析和系统评价中独立提取数据，并使用多重系统评价2(AMSTAR2)评估其方法学质量。
■这项分析涵盖了11项研究，其中四人来自伊朗，两个来自韩国，五个来自中国。关于补充和替代医学的有效性的结果是有争议的，这表明需要进一步研究。AMSTAR2评估的系统评价和荟萃分析的方法学质量被评为低或极低。此评估归因于评论中对出版物偏见的审查不足，以及缺乏关于偏见风险影响的讨论。
■关于替代和补充医学在解决男性不育方面的有效性的现有证据是有限的。此外，已发表的系统评价和荟萃分析的总体方法学质量可能被低估,因为与之前的评估工具相比,AMSTAR2的使用似乎是一种更精确的评估工具.
