Background: Psoriasis produces significant adverse effects on the psychological and social aspects of the patient, mainly because of its visibility. World Health Organization\'s (WHO) recent Global Report on Psoriasis states that there are many unmet research gaps in psoriasis with respect to treatment and ways to improve healthcare services. Clinical Research on psoriasis should focus on options that can be applicable globally, on a large-scale. Plenty of studies individually proving efficacy of various Ayurvedic treatment modalities in subjective and objective improvement of psoriasis are published. Systematic reviews of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) on psoriasis are available, but these studies do not include Ayurvedic interventions.
Aim: Thorough review of published data of Ayurvedic interventions in the management of psoriasis to provide more precise estimates of safety and effectiveness of Ayurvedic interventions for psoriasis.
Objective: Outlining the protocol to conduct a Systematic Review of published studies examining the effects of Ayurvedic interventions on psoriasis.
Materials and methods: The preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) protocols guidelines, The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the consolidated standards of reporting trials guidelines, guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews provided the design to conduct and report the protocol, structure research question and search term selection and the data extraction form; though some adaptations may be made with regard to search terms, data synthesis, and evaluating the risk of bias.
Trial registration number: PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018097298.
Dissemination: The SR will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The review will be updated to inform and guide healthcare practice and policy.
Dogra S, Yadav S. Psoriasis in India: prevalence and pattern. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2010;76(6):595–601. DOI: 10.4103/0378-6323.72443.
Thappa DM, Munisamy M. Research on psoriasis in India: where do we stand? Indian J Med Res 2017;146(2):147–149. DOI: 10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_1296_17.
Gamret AC, Price A, Fertig RM, et al. Complementary and alternative medicine therapies for psoriasis: a systematic review. JAMA Dermatol 2018;154(11):1330–1337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2018.2972.
Parker S, Zhang CS, Yu JJ, et al. Oral chinese herbal medicine versus placebo for psoriasis vulgaris: a systematic review. J Dermatolog Treat 2017;28(1):21–31. DOI: 10.1080/09546634.2016.1178377.
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015;4(1):1. DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.
Narahari SR, Aggithaya MG, Suraj KR. A protocol for systematic reviews of Ayurveda treatments. Int J Ayurveda Res 2010;1(4):254–267. DOI: 10.4103/0974-7788.76791.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62(10):e1–e34. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009. 06.006.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. PRISMA group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62(10):1006–1012. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005.
Gupta SK. Intention-to-treat concept: a review. Perspect Clin Res 2011;2(3):109–112. DOI: 10.4103/2229-3485.83221.
Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Br Med J 2010;340(mar23 1):c869. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c869.
Higgins JPT, Green S, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. [2015-11-26]. Available from: http://community.cochrane.org/handbook.
Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Chapter 9: analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, ed. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org.
Sterne JAC, Egger M, Moher D, Chapter 10: addressing reporting biases. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, ed. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org.
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.
Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, et al. Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews - A product of the ESRC Methods Programme. UK: Lancaster University; 2006.
Goyal M. Need of systematic review of clinical trials in Ayurveda. Ayu 2017;38(3-4):95–96. DOI: 10.4103/ayu.AYU_115_18.
Wurz A, Brunet J. A systematic review protocol to assess the effects of physical activity on health and quality of life outcomes in adolescent cancer survivors. JMIR Res Protoc 2016;5(1):e54. DOI: 10.2196/resprot.5383.