Journal of Research in Ayurvedic Sciences

Register      Login

VOLUME 3 , ISSUE 1 ( January-March, 2019 ) > List of Articles


Efficacy of Ayurvedic Interventions in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Protocol for Systematic Review

Sumeet Goel, Azeem Ahmad, Arvind Kumar, Rajeshwari Singh, Bhogavalli Chandra Sekhara Rao

Keywords : Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis, Vatarakta,Amavata

Citation Information : Goel S, Ahmad A, Kumar A, Singh R, Rao BC. Efficacy of Ayurvedic Interventions in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Protocol for Systematic Review. J Res Ayurvedic Sci 2019; 3 (1):12-16.

DOI: 10.5005/jras-10064-0071

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-03-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Introduction: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been treated in Ayurveda, and substantial work has been done in studying the role of Ayurveda interventions in its management. A systematic review is planned to investigate the safety and efficacy of Ayurveda interventions for RA through analyzing published clinical research work. Materials and methods: This study is intended to systematically review the existing published clinical work including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, parallel-group trials, and single-group clinical studies for Ayurveda interventions for RA. Electronic search of the following databases will be performed: PubMed, AYUSH research portal, digital helpline for Ayurveda research articles (DHARA), Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library (the Cochrane Database of systematic reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Cochrane Methodology Register), Ayurveda college/Universities websites, databases for dissertation works without any restriction of publication year. Hand search and snowballing of studies will also be performed to fetch complete available literature. The selection of the studies, data abstraction, and validations will be performed independently by two teams of researchers. Conclusion will be derived with consensus of complete review team. Study selection will follow the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and study quality will be assessed by CONSORT checklist for RCTs, Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND) checklist for nonrandomized controlled trial (NRCTs), and CONSORT extension for Pilot and feasibility studies for pilot studies. Risk of bias assessment will be performed with the help of Cochrane RoB2 tool for RCTs and Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for NRCTs. If sufficient and appropriate data are available, a meta-analysis will be conducted. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be performed if found to be necessary and feasible. Ethics and dissemination: Formal ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication. The review will be updated to inform and guide healthcare practice and policy. Trial Registration Number: International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) number 2019 CRD42019133722.

PDF Share
  1. Birch JT Jr, Bhattacharya S. Emerging trends in diagnosis and treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Prim Care 2010;37(4):779–792. DOI: 10.1016/j.pop.2010.07.001, vii.
  2. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339(1):b2700. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b2700.
  3. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340(1):c869. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c869.
  4. Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N. TREND group. Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. Am J Public Health 2004;94(3):361–366. DOI: 10.2105/ajph.94.3.361.
  5. Eldridge SM, Chan CL, Campbell MJ, et al. PAFS consensus group. CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2016;2(1):64. DOI: 10.1186/s40814-016-0105-8 eCollection 2016.
  6. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). ch. 8. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from:
  7. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016;355:i4919. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i4919.
  8. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). ch. 9. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from:
  9. JAC Sterne, Egger M, Moher D. Addressing reporting biases. In: Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). ch. 10. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from:
  10. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315(7109):629–634. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629.
  11. Dijkers M. Introducing GRADE: a systematic approach to rating evidence in systematic reviews and to guideline development. KT Update 2013;1(5):Available from:
PDF Share