Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24276956›Full record

SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2014

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of traditional Chinese medicine compound kushen injection for bone cancer pain.

Bao Yanju, Liping Yang, Baojin Hua, Wei Hou, Zhan Shi, Weidong Li, Conghuang Li, Cihui Chen, Rui Liu, Yinggang Qin and 1 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Bao YanjuDepartment of Oncology, Guang'anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beixiange 5, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100053, China, baoyanju@126.com.
Liping Yang
Baojin Hua
Wei Hou
Zhan Shi
Weidong Li
Conghuang Li
Cihui Chen
Rui Liu
Yinggang Qin
Wenliang Lv
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNGuang’anmen Hospital · CNZhejiang Provincial Hospital of TCM · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeBone cancer pain presents a clinical challenge with limitations of current treatments. Compound kushen injection (CKI) is a well-known traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) formulation in treatment of patients with bone cancer pain. The objective of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of CKI for bone cancer pain.

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in nine databases until December 2012 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CKI versus current western therapies for bone cancer pain. The primary outcome was total pain relief rate. The secondary outcomes were the quality of life and adverse events at the end of treatment course. The methodological quality of RCTs was assessed independently using six-item criteria according to the Cochrane Collaboration, and the level of evidence was assessed by the GRADE approach. All data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.1.0.

resultsSeven RCTs with 521 patients from 2010 to 2012 were identified. Compared with radiotherapy or bisphosphonates, seven RCTs showed significant effects of CKI for improving pain relief in patients with bone cancer pain (n = 521, risk ratio (RR) = 1.25, 95 % CI (95 % confidence intervals (CI)), 1.13 to 1.38, p < 0.0001)), three RCTs for improving Karnofsky scoring (KPS) increase rate (n = 305, RR = 1.62, 95 % CI, 1.32 to 1.99, p < 0.00001), 1 RCT for increasing KPS scores (n = 78, mean difference (MD) = 10.43, 95 % CI 4.76 to 16.10, p = 0.0003). 4 RCTs reported adverse effects in both the treatment and control groups. The patients treated with CKI achieved statistically significant reductions of incidences of leukopenia (n = 276, RR = 0.32, 95 % CI, 0.21 to 0.47, p < 0.00001) and nausea (n = 78, RR = 0.15, 95 % CI, 0.06 to 0.34, p < 0.00001). No severe adverse events were found and no treatment was stopped because of adverse events of CKI in the treatment groups. However, the studies were deemed to have a high risk of bias.

conclusionThis systematic review showed positive but weak evidence of CKI for bone cancer pain because of the poor methodological quality and the small quantity of the included trials. Future rigorously designed RCTs are required.

Indexed as

Drugs, Chinese HerbalAdultAgedBone NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleMedicine, Chinese TraditionalMiddle AgedPainRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicDrugs, Chinese Herbalkushen

Identifiers

PMID24276956
OpenAlexW2094861471

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.