SynthesisPloS one2016
A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials on Oral Chinese Herbal Medicine for Prostate Cancer.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Modified xiaoyao san combined with chemotherapy for breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- An Overview of Systematic Reviews: Complementary Therapies for Cancer Patients.Integrative cancer therapiesPooled it
- Chinese herbal medicines for prostate cancer therapy: From experimental research to clinical practice.Chinese herbal medicines · 2023Review
- Article
- Article
- Herb-target virtual screening and network pharmacology for prediction of molecular mechanism of Danggui Beimu Kushen Wan for prostate cancer.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Effects of Psychological Intervention on Perioperative Quality of Life and Serum PSA and FPSA Levels of Patients with Prostate Cancer Treated with Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2021Article
- A qualitative study of classical Chinese medicine in community health focusing on self-care: practitioner and staff perspectives.Integrative medicine research · 2020Article
- Fritillariae Thunbergii Bulbus: Traditional Uses, Phytochemistry, Pharmacodynamics, Pharmacokinetics and Toxicity.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- Cytotoxic and chemosensitization effects of Scutellarin from traditional Chinese herb Scutellaria altissima L. in human prostate cancer cells.Oncology reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProstate cancer is the most common malignant tumor associated with male reproductive system.
objectiveThe existing eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were critically appraised for the safety and effectiveness of CHM for prostate cancer.
methodsA literature search was conducted by using PubMed, CENTRAL, CNKI, CBM, VIP and Wanfang databases until August 2015. RCTs of CHM or CHM plus conventional medicine for prostate cancer patients were included. The primary outcomes appraised were survival time, time to progression and quality of life. The risk of bias assessment according to the Cochrane Handbook was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included trials. Revman 5.3 software was used for data analyses. Risk ratio and mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as effect measures. Meta-analysis was to be used if sufficient trials without obvious clinical or statistical heterogeneity were available.
resultsA total of 17 RCTs involving 1224 participants were analyzed. One trial was about CHM comparing to no treatment. The remaining 16 trials used CHMs as adjunctive treatment for endocrine therapy. Due to the poor quality of methodologies of most trials, only limited evidence showed that a combination of CHM and endocrine therapy might be more effective in restraining the development of the disease (MD 10.37 months, 95%CI 9.10 to 11.63 months), increasing patients' survival time (7-15 months) or improving patients' performance status, when compared to endocrine therapy alone (Karnofsky performance scale average changed 15 scores between groups). No severe adverse event was reported related to CHM.
conclusionDue to the insufficient quality of trials that were analyzed, it is not appropriate to recommend any kind of CHMs in treating prostate cancer at the present time. Well-designed trials with high methodological quality are needed to validate the effect of CHMs for patients with prostate cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.