Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22174870›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2011

Cochrane systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicines: an overview.

Jing Hu, Junhua Zhang, Wei Zhao, Yongling Zhang, Li Zhang, Hongcai Shang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Cochrane systematic reviews on traditional Chinese medicine: What matters-the quantity or quality of evidence?Phytomedicine : international journal of phytotherapy and phytopharmacology · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The quality of Cochrane systematic reviews of acupuncture: an overview.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2020
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jing HuResearch Institute of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin, China.
Junhua Zhang
Wei Zhao
Yongling Zhang
Li Zhang
Hongcai Shang

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesour study had two objectives: a) to systematically identify all existing systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) published in Cochrane Library; b) to assess the methodological quality of included reviews. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsWe performed a systematic search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR, Issue 5, 2010) to identify all reviews of CHM. A total of fifty-eight reviews were eligible for our study. Twenty-one of the included reviews had at least one Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) practitioner as its co-author. 7 reviews didn't include any primary study, the remaining reviews (n = 51) included a median of 9 studies and 936 participants. 50% of reviews were last assessed as up-to-date prior to 2008. The questions addressed by 39 reviews were broad in scope, in which 9 reviews combined studies with different herbal medicines. For OQAQ, the mean of overall quality score (item 10) was 5.05 (95% CI; 4.58-5.52). All reviews assessed the methodological quality of primary studies, 16% of included primary studies used adequate sequence generation and 7% used adequate allocation concealment. Of the 51 nonempty reviews, 23 reviews were reported as being inconclusive, while 27 concluded that there might be benefit of CHM, which was limited by the poor quality or inadequate quantity of included studies. 58 reviews reported searching a median of seven electronic databases, while 10 reviews did not search any Chinese database.

conclusionsNow CDSR has included large numbers of CHM reviews, our study identified some areas which could be improved, such as almost half of included reviews did not have the participation of TCM practitioners and were not up-to-date according to Cochrane criteria, some reviews pooled the results of different herbal medicines and ignored the searching of Chinese databases.

Indexed as

Databases as TopicDrugs, Chinese HerbalSurveys and QuestionnairesDrugs, Chinese Herbal

Identifiers

PMID22174870
PMCPMC3235143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.