Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26735544›Full record

ReviewMedicine2016

Chinese Herbal Medicine for Improving Quality of Life Among Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer Patients: Overview of Systematic Reviews and Network Meta-Analysis.

Xinyin Wu, Vincent C H Chung, Ping Lu, Simon K Poon, Edwin P Hui, Alexander Y L Lau, Lynda G Balneaves, Samuel Y S Wong, Justin C Y Wu

Open access · goldAbstract readReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Review in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

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

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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Xinyin WuFrom the Hong Kong Institute of Integrative Medicine (XW, VCHC, LP, SYSW), Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care (XW, VCHC, EPH, AYLL, SYSW, JCYW), Comprehensive Cancer Trials Unit (EPH), and Department of Medicine and Therapeutics (AYLL, JCYW), The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong; School of Information Technologies, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia (SKP); and Centre for Integrative Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (LGB).
Vincent C H Chung
Ping Lu
Simon K Poon
Edwin P Hui
Alexander Y L Lau
Lynda G Balneaves
Samuel Y S Wong
Justin C Y Wu
LGBT Foundation · GBChinese University of Hong Kong · HK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving chemotherapy, current clinical evidence has indicated add-on benefit of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) in improving quality of life (QoL). However, the relative performance among different CHM is unknown. The aim of this overview of systematic reviews (SRs) and network meta-analyses (NMA) is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different CHM. Seven electronic databases including both international databases and Chinese databases were searched. SRs focus on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with comparison of CHM plus chemotherapy against chemotherapy alone on QoL among NSCLC patients were considered eligible. Data from RCTs were extracted for random effect pairwise meta-analyses. Pooled relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to quantify the impact of CHM on QoL. NMA was used to explore the most effective CHM for improving QoL when used with chemotherapy. From 14 SRs, 61 RCTs (n = 4247) assessing 11 different CHM were included. Result from pairwise meta-analyses showed 6 CHM (Kang-lai-te injection, Shei-qi-fu-zheng injection, Compound ku-shen injection, Kang-ai injection, Zi-jin-long tablet, and Shen-fu injection) has significant beneficial effect on QoL among NSCLC patients when used with chemotherapy, even after adjustment for publication bias. Pooled RR varied from 1.38 (95% CI: 1.11-1.72, I2 = 0.0%, Kang-lai-te injection) to 3.36 (95% CI: 1.30-8.66, I2 = 0.0%, Zi-jin-long tablet). One trial comparing Hai-shen-su (a protein extract from Tegillarca granosa L.) plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy also demonstrated beneficial effect of combined treatment (RR = 3.13, 95% CI: 1.41-6.98). Results from NMA showed no differences on the comparative effectiveness among CHM, but Hai-shen-su plus chemotherapy has the highest probability (62.3%) of being the best option for improving QoL. Use of CHM on top of chemotherapy can significantly improve QoL in NSCLC patients. Although Hai-shen-su showed the highest probability of being the best add-on to chemotherapy, the effectiveness of all 11 CHM reviewed appeared to be similar. In the future, rigorous placebo controlled trials with proper blinding are needed to confirm the effectiveness of CHM.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeAntineoplastic AgentsCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungDrug Administration RoutesDrugs, Chinese HerbalDrug Therapy, CombinationHumansLung NeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAntineoplastic AgentsDrugs, Chinese Herbalkang-lai-teShen-Fu

Identifiers

PMID26735544
PMCPMC4706264
OpenAlexW2332804939

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.