ArticleEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2009
Chinese Herbal Medicine for Dysfunctional Uterine Bleeding: a Meta-analysis.
Article in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characterization and anti-uterine tumor effect of extract from Prunella vulgaris L.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2020Article
- Demographic and Clinical Features of Endometrial Polyps in Patients with Endometriosis.BioMed research international · 2016Article
- Adverse effects of herbal medicines: an overview of systematic reviews.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB) by performing a meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing CHM vs no treatment, placebo, conventional western medicine (CWM), or general non-specific surgical treatment for DUB were identified by electronic and manual searches. Trials of CHM treatments with CWM treatments were compared with CWM treatments alone. Jadad scale and allocation concealment were used to assess the quality of included studies. Four RCTs or quasi-RCTs involving 525 patients were included. The methodological quality was poor in all trials except one trial. No serious adverse events were reported in the included studies. With the lack of trials comparing CHM with no treatment or placebo, it is impossible to accurately evaluate the efficacy of CHM. However, CHM in these studies seem to show an encouraging comparative effectiveness with CWM. More RCTs with a higher quality are required.
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.