ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2017
Establishing an evaluation mode with multiple primary outcomes based on combination of diseases and symptoms in TCM clinical trials.
Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Traditional Chinese medicine for the treatment of diabetic kidney disease: A study-level pooled analysis of 44 randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- A Discovery Strategy for Active Compounds of Chinese Medicine Based on the Prediction Model of Compound-Disease Relationship.Journal of oncology · 2022Article
- Article
- The Use of Multiple Primary Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials of Chinese Herbal Medicine.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2021Review
- Systems Pharmacology for Investigation of the Mechanisms of Action of Traditional Chinese Medicine in Drug Discovery.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Review
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development of a scientific evaluation tool is a prerequisite to reflect the efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). At present, separate analysis of each outcome is the most commonly used method in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of TCM, while this method has been reported to have some limitations. Combination evaluation of multiple primary outcomes including diseases and symptoms can reflect the efficacy of TCM comprehensively and objectively. Now, several multivariate statistical methods have been proposed to analyze RCTs with multiple clinical outcomes. In this article, we highlighted the two commonly used methods, global statistical test (GST) methodology and alpha-adjustment procedures, and introduced an evaluation mode. First, we used one stage adaptive adjustment strategy to estimate the correlation among multiple primary outcomes in blindness, which can resolve the inappropriate correlation estimation among multiple primary outcomes, then we introduced an adaptation of the Bonferroni procedure which can account for correlated data to calculate the alpha of individual outcome. GST using O'Brien ranking procedure and the corresponding global treatment effect (GTE) measure were used to assess the treatment's global impact. We will conduct a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial with compound Danshen dripping pills for stable angina to explore establishing the evaluation mode. We hope that the introduction of this approach can provide methodological aid for the assessment of therapeutic effect of TCM.
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.