Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24454510›Full record

ReviewEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2013

Chinese herbal medicine for acute mountain sickness: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Jie Wang, Xingjiang Xiong, Yanwei Xing, Zhen Liu, Wenrui Jiang, Junyi Huang, Bo Feng

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jie WangDepartment of Cardiology, Guang'anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, No. 5 Beixiange, Xicheng District, Beijing 100053, China.
Xingjiang XiongDepartment of Cardiology, Guang'anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, No. 5 Beixiange, Xicheng District, Beijing 100053, China.
Yanwei XingDepartment of Cardiology, Guang'anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, No. 5 Beixiange, Xicheng District, Beijing 100053, China.
Zhen LiuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Guang'anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100053, China.
Wenrui JiangDepartment of Cardiology, Guang'anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, No. 5 Beixiange, Xicheng District, Beijing 100053, China.
Junyi HuangDepartment of Cardiology, Guang'anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, No. 5 Beixiange, Xicheng District, Beijing 100053, China.
Bo FengDepartment of Cardiology, Guang'anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, No. 5 Beixiange, Xicheng District, Beijing 100053, China.
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNChina Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences · CNGuang’anmen Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives. We aimed to assess the current clinical evidence of Chinese herbal medicine for AMS. Methods. Seven electronic databases were searched until January 2013. We included randomized clinical trials testing Chinese herbal medicine against placebo, no drugs, Western drugs, or a combination of routine treatment drugs against routine treatment drugs. Study selection, data extraction, quality assessment, and data analyses were conducted according to Cochrane standards. Results. Nine randomized trials were included. The methodological quality of the included trials was evaluated as low. Two trials compared prescriptions of Chinese formula used alone with Western drugs. A meta-analysis showed a beneficial effect in decreasing the score of AMS (MD: -2.23 [-3.98, -0.49], P = 0.01). Only one trial compared prescriptions of Chinese formula used alone with no drugs. A meta-analysis showed a significant beneficial effect in decreasing the score of AMS (MD: -6.00 [-6.45, -5.55], P < 0.00001). Four trials compared Chinese formula used alone with placebo. A meta-analysis also showed a significant beneficial effect in decreasing the score of AMS (MD: -1.10 [-1.64, -0.55], P < 0.0001). Two trials compared the combination of Chinese formula plus routine treatment drugs with routine treatment drugs. A meta-analysis showed a beneficial effect in decreasing the score of AMS (MD: -5.99 [-11.11, -0.86], P = 0.02). Conclusions. No firm conclusion on the effectiveness and safety of Chinese herbal medicine for AMS can be made. More rigorous high-quality trials are required to generate a high level of evidence and to confirm the results.

Identifiers

PMID24454510
PMCPMC3881533
OpenAlexW2074459645

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.