1,720,985 research outputs found
Synergistic effect of herbal medicine and anticancer drug: A protocol for systematic review
No full text1. Review title.
Synergistic effect of herbal medicine and anticancer drug: A protocol for systematic review
2. Anticipated or actual start date.
01/10/2021
3. Anticipated completion date.
31/03/2022
4. Stage of review at time of this submission.
Preliminary searches: No Started
Piloting of the study selection process: No Started
Formal screening of search results against eligibility criteria: No Started
Data extraction: No Started
Risk of bias (quality) assessment: No Started
Data analysis: No Started
5. Named contact.
Chunhoo Cheon
6. Named contact email.
[email protected]
7. Named contact address
Department of Preventive medicine, Korean medicine College, Kyung Hee University, 26 Kyungheedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 02447, Republic of Korea
8. Named contact phone number.
+822-961-2382
9. Organisational affiliation of the review.
Kyung Hee University Korean Medicine-Based Drug Repositioning Cancer Research Center
http://kdcrc.kr
10. Review team members and their organisational affiliations.
Dr Chunhoo Cheon. Kyung Hee University
11. Funding sources/sponsors.
This research was supported by a grant of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. 2020R1A5A2019413).
12. Conflicts of interest.
None
13. Collaborators.
None
14. Review question.
Which herbal medicines show a synergistic effect when combined with anticancer drugs?
15. Searches.
The following electronic databases will be searched: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Korean
databases and Chinese databases.
The search terms will be the MeSH terms of ' Antineoplastic Agents', 'Phytotherapy', and 'Drug Synergism'.
16. Condition or domain being studied.
Cancer
17. Participants/population.
Patient with cancer or cancer model
18. Intervention(s), exposure(s).
Herbal medicine combined with anticancer drug
19. Comparator(s)/control.
No specific restriction
20. Types of study to be included.
no restriction
21. Main outcome(s).
Synergistic effect of herbal medicine and anticancer drug
22. Additional outcome(s).
None
23. Data extraction (selection and coding).
Two independent researchers will review all articles and extract the data using a standard data extraction form. Any disagreement between the authors will be resolved by discussion or third party arbitration.
24. Risk of bias (quality) assessment.
RoB 2 tool (revised tool for Risk of Bias in randomized trials) will be used to assess risk of bias of randomized controlled trials.
25. Strategy for data synthesis.
The data will be narratively synthesized.
26. Analysis of subgroups or subsets.
Subgroup analysis will be conducted according to the herbal medicine and anticancer drug.
27. Type and method of review.
Type of review- Intervention, Narrative synthesis
Health area of the review-Complementary therapies
28. Language.
English
29. Country.
South Korea
30. Dissemination plans.
Do you intend to publish the review on completion?
Yes
31. Current review status.
Ongoin
Synergistic effect of herbal medicines and anticancer drugs: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis
No full textThis is a protocol for systematic review on synergistic effect of herbal medicines and anticancer drugs.
1. Review title.
Synergistic effect of herbal medicines and anticancer drugs: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis
2. Anticipated or actual start date.
01/10/2021
3. Anticipated completion date.
31/03/2022
4. Stage of review at time of this submission.
Preliminary searches: No Started
Piloting of the study selection process: No Started
Formal screening of search results against eligibility criteria: No Started
Data extraction: No Started
Risk of bias (quality) assessment: No Started
Data analysis: No Started
5. Named contact.
Chunhoo Cheon
6. Named contact email.
[email protected]
7. Named contact address
Department of Preventive medicine, Korean medicine College, Kyung Hee University, 26 Kyungheedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 02447, Republic of Korea
8. Named contact phone number.
+822-961-2382
9. Organisational affiliation of the review.
Kyung Hee University Korean Medicine-Based Drug Repositioning Cancer Research Center
http://kdcrc.kr
10. Review team members and their organisational affiliations.
Dr Chunhoo Cheon. Kyung Hee University
11. Funding sources/sponsors.
This research was supported by a grant of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. 2020R1A5A2019413).
12. Conflicts of interest.
None
13. Collaborators.
None
14. Review question.
Which herbal medicines show a synergistic effect when combined with anticancer drugs?
15. Searches.
The following electronic databases will be searched: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Korean
databases and Chinese databases.
The search terms will be the MeSH terms of ' Antineoplastic Agents', 'Phytotherapy', and 'Drug Synergism'.
16. Condition or domain being studied.
Cancer
17. Participants/population.
Patient with cancer or cancer model
18. Intervention(s), exposure(s).
Herbal medicine combined with anticancer drug
19. Comparator(s)/control.
No specific restriction
20. Types of study to be included.
no restriction
21. Main outcome(s).
Synergistic effect of herbal medicine and anticancer drug
22. Additional outcome(s).
None
23. Data extraction (selection and coding).
Two independent researchers will review all articles and extract the data using a standard data extraction form. Any disagreement between the authors will be resolved by discussion or third party arbitration.
24. Risk of bias (quality) assessment.
RoB 2 tool (revised tool for Risk of Bias in randomized trials) will be used to assess risk of bias of randomized controlled trials.
25. Strategy for data synthesis.
The data will be narratively synthesized.
26. Analysis of subgroups or subsets.
Subgroup analysis will be conducted according to the herbal medicine and anticancer drug.
27. Type and method of review.
Type of review- Intervention, Narrative synthesis
Health area of the review-Complementary therapies
28. Language.
English
29. Country.
South Korea
30. Dissemination plans.
Do you intend to publish the review on completion?
Yes
31. Current review status.
Ongoin
Synergistic effects of herbal medicines and anticancer drugs: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis
No full text1. Review title.
Synergistic effects of herbal medicines and anticancer drugs: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis
2. Anticipated or actual start date.
01/10/2021
3. Anticipated completion date.
31/03/2022
4. Stage of review at time of this submission.
Preliminary searches: No Started
Piloting of the study selection process: No Started
Formal screening of search results against eligibility criteria: No Started
Data extraction: No Started
Risk of bias (quality) assessment: No Started
Data analysis: No Started
5. Named contact.
Chunhoo Cheon
6. Named contact email.
[email protected]
7. Named contact address
Department of Preventive medicine, Korean medicine College, Kyung Hee University, 26 Kyungheedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 02447, Republic of Korea
8. Named contact phone number.
+822-961-2382
9. Organisational affiliation of the review.
Kyung Hee University Korean Medicine-Based Drug Repositioning Cancer Research Center
http://kdcrc.kr
10. Review team members and their organisational affiliations.
Dr Chunhoo Cheon. Kyung Hee University
11. Funding sources/sponsors.
This research was supported by a grant of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. 2020R1A5A2019413) and the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number: HI18C2382).
12. Conflicts of interest.
None
13. Collaborators.
None
14. Review question.
Which herbal medicines show a synergistic effect when combined with anticancer drugs?
15. Searches.
The following electronic databases will be searched: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Korean
databases and Chinese databases.
The search terms will be the MeSH terms of ' Antineoplastic Agents', 'Phytotherapy', and 'Drug Synergism'.
16. Condition or domain being studied.
Cancer
17. Participants/population.
Patient with cancer or cancer model
18. Intervention(s), exposure(s).
Herbal medicine combined with anticancer drug
19. Comparator(s)/control.
No specific restriction
20. Types of study to be included.
no restriction
21. Main outcome(s).
Synergistic effect of herbal medicine and anticancer drug
22. Additional outcome(s).
None
23. Data extraction (selection and coding).
Two independent researchers will review all articles and extract the data using a standard data extraction form. Any disagreement between the authors will be resolved by discussion or third party arbitration.
24. Risk of bias (quality) assessment.
RoB 2 tool (revised tool for Risk of Bias in randomized trials) will be used to assess risk of bias of randomized controlled trials.
25. Strategy for data synthesis.
The data will be narratively synthesized.
26. Analysis of subgroups or subsets.
Subgroup analysis will be conducted according to the herbal medicine and anticancer drug.
27. Type and method of review.
Type of review- Intervention, Narrative synthesis
Health area of the review-Complementary therapies
28. Language.
English
29. Country.
South Korea
30. Dissemination plans.
Do you intend to publish the review on completion?
Yes
31. Current review status.
Ongoin
Overview on effectiveness of Qigong and Tai chi: a protocol for systematic review
No full text1. Review title.
Overview on Effectiveness of Qigong and Taichi: a protocol for systematic review
2. Anticipated or actual start date.
(Give the date when the systematic review commenced, or is expected to commence.)
24/08/2020
3. Anticipated completion date.
(Give the date by which the review is expected to be completed.)
31/05/2021
4. Stage of review at time of this submission.
Preliminary searches: Completed
Piloting of the study selection process: Completed
Formal screening of search results against eligibility criteria: Completed
Data extraction: Started
Risk of bias (quality) assessment: Started
Data analysis: Started
Provide any other relevant information about the stage of the review here (e.g. Funded proposal, protocol not yet finalised).
5. Named contact.
(The named contact acts as the guarantor for the accuracy of the information presented in the register record.)
Chunhoo Cheon
Email salutation (e.g. "Dr Smith" or "Joanne") for correspondence:
Dr Cheon
6. Named contact email.
(Give the electronic mail address of the named contact.)
[email protected]
7. Named contact address
(PLEASE NOTE this information will be published in the PROSPERO record so please do not enter private information. Give the full postal address for the named contact.)
Department of Preventive medicine, Korean medicine College, Kyung Hee University, 26 Kyungheedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 02447, Republic of Korea
8. Named contact phone number.
(Give the telephone number for the named contact, including international dialling code.)
+822-961-2382
9. * Organisational affiliation of the review.
(Full title of the organisational affiliations for this review and website address if available. This field may be completed as 'None' if the review is not affiliated to any organisation.)
Kyung Hee University
http://kmc.khu.ac.kr/eng/
10. Review team members and their organisational affiliations.
(Give the personal details and the organisational affiliations of each member of the review team. Affiliation refers to groups or organisations to which review team members belong. NOTE: email and country are now mandatory fields for each person.)
Dr Chunhoo Cheon. Kyung Hee University
Miss Su Hyeon Lee. Kyung Hee University
Miss Yerim Jeon. Kyung Hee University
Professor Seong-gyu Ko. Kyung Hee University
11. * Funding sources/sponsors.
(Give details of the individuals, organizations, groups or other legal entities who take responsibility for initiating, managing, sponsoring and/or financing the review. Include any unique identification numbers assigned to the review by the individuals or bodies listed.)
This work was supported by an undergraduate research program (URP) grant from Kyung Hee University College of Korean Medicine.
12. * Conflicts of interest.
(List any conditions that could lead to actual or perceived undue influence on judgements concerning the main topic investigated in the review.)
None
13. Collaborators.
(Give the name and affiliation of any individuals or organisations who are working on the review but who are not listed as review team members. NOTE: email and country are now mandatory fields for each person.)
None
14. Review question.
(State the question(s) to be addressed by the review, clearly and precisely. Review questions may be specific or broad. It may be appropriate to break very broad questions down into a series of related more specific questions. Questions may be framed or refined using PI(E)COS where relevant.)
1. Do Qigong and Tai chi have an effect on various health conditions?
2. For which diseases were Qigong and Tai Chi studies conducted?
15. Searches.
(State the sources that will be searched. Give the search dates, and any restrictions (e.g. language or publication period).
The following electronic databases will be searched: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Korean
databases and Chinese databases.
The search terms will be the MeSH terms of 'qigong', 'taichi', and 'systematic review'.
16. Condition or domain being studied.
(Give a short description of the disease, condition or healthcare domain being studied. This could include health and wellbeing outcomes.)
Any type of health conditions
17. * Participants/population.
(Give summary criteria for the participants or populations being studied by the review. The preferred format includes details of both inclusion and exclusion criteria.)
People who have performed Qigong or Tai chi for the purpose of improving health
18. Intervention(s), exposure(s).
(Give full and clear descriptions or definitions of the nature of the interventions or the exposures to be reviewed.)
Qigong or Taichi
19. Comparator(s)/control.
(Where relevant, give details of the alternatives against which the main subject/topic of the review will be compared (e.g. another intervention or a non-exposed control group). The preferred format includes details of both inclusion and exclusion criteria.)
No specific restriction
20. * Types of study to be included.
(Give details of the types of study (study designs) eligible for inclusion in the review. If there are no restrictions on the types of study design eligible for inclusion, or certain study types are excluded, this should be stated. The preferred format includes details of both inclusion and exclusion criteria.)
Systematic review
21. Main outcome(s).
(Give the pre-specified main (most important) outcomes of the review, including details of how the outcome is defined and measured and when these measurement are made, if these are part of the review inclusion criteria.)
All health-related outcomes observed after performing Qigong or Taichi
* Measures of effect
(Please specify the effect measure(s) for you main outcome(s) e.g. relative risks, odds ratios, risk difference, and/or 'number needed to treat.)
Not specific
22. Additional outcome(s).
(List the pre-specified additional outcomes of the review, with a similar level of detail to that required for main outcomes. Where there are no additional outcomes please state ‘None’ or ‘Not applicable’ as appropriate to the review)
For what diseases qigong or Taichi applies.
* Measures of effect
(Please specify the effect measure(s) for you additional outcome(s) e.g. relative risks, odds ratios, risk difference, and/or 'number needed to treat.)
Not applicable
23. Data extraction (selection and coding).
(Describe how studies will be selected for inclusion. State what data will be extracted or obtained. State how this will be done and recorded.)
Two independent researchers will review all articles and extract the data using a standard data extraction form. Any disagreement between the authors will be resolved by discussion or third party arbitration.
24. * Risk of bias (quality) assessment.
(Describe the method of assessing risk of bias or quality assessment. State which characteristics of the studies will be assessed and any formal risk of bias tools that will be used.)
AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) will be used to assess risk of bias.
Two researchers will assess the AMSTAR independently.
25. Strategy for data synthesis.
(Provide details of the planned synthesis including a rationale for the methods selected. This must not be generic text but should be specific to your review and describe how the proposed analysis will be applied to your data.)
The data will be narratively synthesized.
26. Analysis of subgroups or subsets.
(State any planned investigation of ‘subgroups’. Be clear and specific about which type of study or participant will be included in each group or covariate investigated. State the planned analytic approach.)
Subgroup analysis will be conducted according to the disease and the type of qigong.
27. Type and method of review.
(Select the type of review and the review method from the lists below. Select the health area(s) of interest for your review.)
Type of review- Intervention, Narrative synthesis, Review of reviews, Systematic review
Health area of the review-Complementary therapies
28. Language.
English
29. Country.
South Korea
30. Dissemination plans.
(Give brief details of plans for communicating essential messages from the review to the appropriate audiences.
Do you intend to publish the review on completion?)
Yes
31. Current review status.
(Review status should be updated when the review is completed and when it is published. For new registrations the review must be Ongoing.)
Ongoin
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Abstract 4310: SH003 induces apoptosis of DU145 prostate cancer cells by inhibiting ERK-involved pathway
No full textAbstract
Herbal medicines have been used in cancer treatment, with many exhibiting favorable side effect and toxicity profiles compared with conventional chemotherapeutic agents. SH003 is a novel extract from Astragalus membranaceus, Angelica gigas, and Trichosanthes Kirilowii Maximowicz combined at a 1:1:1 ratio that impairs the growth of breast cancer cells. Our data demonstrate that SH003 induced apoptosis in DU145 prostate cancer cells by inhibiting ERK signaling. SH003 induced apoptosis of prostate cancer cells in dose-dependent manner, which was independent of androgen dependency. SH003 also increased intracellular ROS levels but this is not associated with its pro-apoptotic effects. SH003 inhibited phosphorylation of Ras/Raf1/MEK/ERK/p90RSK in androgen-independent DU145 cells, but not androgen-dependent LNCaP and PC-3 cells. Moreover, ERK2 overexpression rescued SH003-induced apoptosis in DU145 cells. Thus, our data conclude that SH003 induces apoptotic cell death of DU145 prostate cancer cells by inhibiting ERK-mediated pathway.
Citation Format: Yu-Jeong Choi, Myeong-Sun Kim, Soo-Yeon Kang, Kangwook Lee, Jin Mo Ku, Se Hyang Hong, Hyo In Kim, Chunhoo Cheon, Youme Ko, Huang Ching Wen, Yui Sasaki, Sohyeon Kang, Tai Young Kim, Ji Hye Kim, Yong Cheol Shin, Seong-Gyu Ko. SH003 induces apoptosis of DU145 prostate cancer cells by inhibiting ERK-involved pathway [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017; 2017 Apr 1-5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 4310. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-4310</jats:p
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
