Search

Background: Post-viral olfactory dysfunction (PVOD) have been reported in infections caused by several respiratory viruses, especially in COVID-19 which influence severely the quality of life of affected subjects. Few study has been published on the treatment of PVOD. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is an effective method for PVOD which effects and safety have been confirmed. Therefore, this study is aim to evaluate the effects of TCM on PVOD. Methods: A searching strategy will be carried out mainly in the following databases in English and Chinese, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China Network Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), Chinese Biomedical and Medical Database (CBM), and Wanfang Database. Only randomized controlled trials related to TCM for PVOD will be included to enhance effectiveness. The primary outcome is the effective rate of PVOD. The secondary outcomes are included olfactory domain value examination, visual analogue scale (VAS), questionnaires of olfactory disorders (QOD), T&T olfactometer test, Sniffin ticks test, and any other clinical assessments. Two authors will independently perform study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment to ensure the quality of the systematic evaluation. Every disagreement will be deal with by the third author. Data synthesis and subgroup analysis will be performed in the Review Manager V 5.3.3. Results: This study is aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TCM in PVOD. Conclusion : This meta-analysis may provide more reliable evidence-based medical evidence for clinical practice to assist patient in relieving PVOD. Ethics and dissemination: There is no need to acquire ethical approval for individuals come from literatures instead of recruiting directly. The findings of this review will be reported in peer-reviewed publications and/or presented at relevant conferences. Prospero registration number: CRD42021238977.

Background: Nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-PTX) has exhibited clinical efficacy in breast cancer treatment, but toxicities can be yielded more at the same time. We did this meta-analysis aiming to unambiguously compare nab-PTX with conventional solvent-based paclitaxel in breast cancer patients of all stages. Method: Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Science and Technology Periodical database, and WangFang database were searched for head-to-head randomized controlled trials of nab-PTX and solvent-based paclitaxel in breast cancer. Other sources will also be searched like Google Scholar and gray literatures. Two researchers will independently search the database and extract data from the articles. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Objective tumor response rate, chemotherapy completion rate after 4 or 6 cycles, and toxicity will be primary outcomes. Disease control rate, overall survival, and progression-free survival/disease-free survival will be included in secondary outcomes. Risk ratio with 95% confidence interval was used for dichotomous variables while hazard ratio was used for time-to-event outcomes. The following 3 data sets will all be considered when synthesizing the data: intention-to-treat population, those who actually received taxanes treatment, and those who were actually assessed. All the analyses were done using Review Manager Software 5.3. Any disagreements in study selection, data collection, and analysis will be resolved by a third investigator. Results and conclusion: This study is aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nab-PTX compared with PTX in breast cancer treatment as well as to find the best dose or schedule and identify the benefit population. This meta-analysis could provide evidence for clinicians to make a better choice between nab-PTX and PTX in different specific contexts. Prospero registration number: CRD42019117912.