Efficacy and safety of Chinese patent medicine paiteling in condyloma acuminatum: A systematic review and meta-analysis

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

Condyloma acuminatum (CA) is a common sexually transmitted disease. Previous studies using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have revealed that Paiteling (PTL), a Chinese patent medicine formula, can effectively relieve CA symptoms. However, the evidence needs to be more cohesive and there is a need for a clear summary of the existing RCTs to assess the overall efficacy and safety profile of PTL.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

This study aimed to conduct a comprehensive review and meta-analysis of RCTs, to examine the efficacy of PTL and physical therapies in CA.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A literature search was conducted in multiple databases, including PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, etc. up to December 1, 2022. Revman 5.4 and Stata 15.0 was used for data statistics and sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

31 trials with a total of 2868 patients were included in this review. The results showed that PTL plus physical therapies were significantly more effective than physical therapies used alone (RR = 1.60, 95% CI [1.38, 1.86]; P < 0.00001). Subgroup analysis showed that the type of physical therapies, gender, and wart location might be the primary sources of heterogeneity. Additionally, PTL can reduce recurrence rates (RR = 0.27, 95% CI [0.19, 0.39]; P < 0.00001), improve the negative conversion rate of HPV (RR = 1.15, 95% CI [1.02, 1.30]; P = 0.02), and improve immune function. No severe adverse reactions or physical injuries were observed, making it a better choice for women planning to become pregnant.

CONCLUSION

Compared with physical therapies, PTL can effectively eliminate CA symptoms and reduce the recurrence rates with safety ensured. However, due to the heterogeneity and methodological shortcomings, large sample sizes and high-quality rigorous RTCs are still needed to strengthen this clinical evidence.

E-Mentoring Female Underrepresented Public Health Student Researchers: Supporting a More Diverse Postpandemic Workforce

Within higher education, underrepresented students continue to face inequalities and discrimination, with unique challenges surfacing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mentoring through formal or informal channels is one way to offer assistance to such students. During COVID-19 lockdowns, as classes and work moved online, mentoring also transitioned online. Electronic mentoring, or e-mentoring, was implemented formally by some universities and informally by independent researchers. This article describes the informal mentoring experiences of the lead author with 8 female student researchers, 6 of whom were mentored online. The students represented different racial and ethnic backgrounds, offering a collection of e-mentoring case studies during the pandemic. These independent field reports should not be assumed to represent any of the students' 6 universities, but they are a sample of what can be achieved by invested e-mentors. By sharing these anecdotal experiences, the authors call on all researchers of underrepresented groups to consider e-mentoring to support underrepresented student researchers and diversify the public health research field.

The leaky pipeline in research grant peer review and funding decisions: challenges and future directions

The growing literature on gender inequality in academia attests to the challenge that awaits female researchers during their academic careers. However, research has not yet conclusively resolved whether these biases persist during the peer review process of research grant funding and whether they impact respective funding decisions. Whereas many have argued for the existence of gender inequality in grant peer reviews and outcomes, others have demonstrated that gender equality is upheld during these processes. In the present paper, we illustrate how these opinions have come to such opposing conclusions and consider methodological and contextual factors that render these findings inconclusive. More specifically, we argue that a more comprehensive approach is needed to further the debate, encompassing individual and systemic biases as well as more global social barriers. We also argue that examining gender biases during the peer review process of research grant funding poses critical methodological challenges that deserve special attention. We conclude by providing directions for possible future research and more general considerations that may improve grant funding opportunities and career paths for female researchers.