Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26669761›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2015

Effectiveness of Chinese herbal medicine for cancer palliative care: overview of systematic reviews with meta-analyses.

Vincent C H Chung, Xinyin Wu, Edwin P Hui, Eric T C Ziea, Bacon F L Ng, Robin S T Ho, Kelvin K F Tsoi, Samuel Y S Wong, Justin C Y Wu

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Prioritizing Chinese medicine clinical research questions in cancer palliative care from patient and caregiver perspectives.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Oncology letters · 2019
    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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Vincent C H ChungHong Kong Institute of Integrative Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Xinyin WuHong Kong Institute of Integrative Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Edwin P HuiHong Kong Institute of Integrative Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Eric T C ZieaChinese Medicine Department, Hong Kong Hospital Authority, Hong Kong.
Bacon F L NgChinese Medicine Department, Hong Kong Hospital Authority, Hong Kong.
Robin S T HoJockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Kelvin K F TsoiJockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Samuel Y S WongHong Kong Institute of Integrative Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Justin C Y WuHong Kong Institute of Integrative Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Chinese University of Hong Kong · CNHong Kong Jockey Club · CNHospital Authority · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) are often used in managing cancer related symptoms but their effectiveness and safety is controversial. We conducted this overview of meta-analyses to summarize evidence on CHM for cancer palliative care. We included systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analyses of CHM clinical trials on patients diagnosed with any type of cancer. Methodological quality of included meta-analyses was assessed with the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) Instrument. Fifty-one SRs with meta-analyses were included. They covered patients with lung (20 SRs), gastric (8 SRs), colorectal (6 SRs), liver (6 SRs), breast (2 SRs), cervical (1 SR), esophageal (1 SR), and nasopharyngeal (1 SR) cancers. Six SRs summarized evidence on various types of cancer. Methodological quality of included meta-analyses was not satisfactory. Overall, favorable therapeutic effects in improving quality of life among cancer patients have been reported. Conflicting evidence exists for the effectiveness of CHM in prolonging survival and in reducing chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy related toxicities. No serious adverse effects were reported in all included studies. Evidence indicated that CHM could be considered as an option for improving quality of life among patients receiving palliative care. It is unclear if CHM may increase survival, or reduce therapy related toxicities.

Indexed as

Palliative CareCombined Modality TherapyDrugs, Chinese HerbalHumansMortalityNeoplasmsQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeDrugs, Chinese Herbal

Identifiers

PMID26669761
PMCPMC4680970
OpenAlexW2403041736

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.