SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007
WITHDRAWN: Medicinal herbs for esophageal cancer.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEsophageal cancer is the seventh leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Traditional Chinese medicinal herbs are sometimes used as an adjunct to radiotherapy or chemotherapy for this type of cancer.
objectivesTo assess the efficacy and possible adverse effects of the addition of Chinese medicinal herbs to treatment with radiotherapy or chemotherapy for esophageal cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group Trials Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), CBM (Chinese Biomedical Database), China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the Chinese Cochrane Centre Controlled Trials Register and CISCOM (The Research Council for Complementary Medicine) (up to June 2004). Databases of ongoing trials, the internet and reference lists were also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing the use of radiotherapy or chemotherapy with and without the addition of Chinese medicinal herbs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality. MAIN
resultsTwo studies were included. The numbers of participants in these two trials were 42 and 80, 122 in total. Both studies were analysed separately because of the differences in interventions used. Although one study reported a positive result, the majority of outcome measurements from the two studies showed no significant benefit with the addition of Chinese herbal medicines to radiotherapy or chemotherapy. There was statistically significant improvement in quality of life with the additional Huachansu injection, however, no statistically significant improvement was found in short-term therapy effects, one-year survival rate or the adverse effect of radiation-induced esophagitis. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThe included studies were of low quality. The results suggest Zhenxiang capsules or Huachansu injection may not improve short-term therapy effects or one-year survival rate when used as adjunct treatment to chemo- or radiotherapy in the treatment of esophageal cancer. The quality of life may be improved by Huachansu injection. The results suggest that more high-quality trials on Huachansu injection and other Chinese herbal medicines are needed in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.