Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29267324›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2017

Traditional Chinese medicine for knee osteoarthritis: An overview of systematic review.

Min Yang, Li Jiang, Qing Wang, Hao Chen, Guihua Xu

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Min YangSchool of Nursing, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Li JiangJingjiang College, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, Jiangsu, China.
Qing WangSchool of Nursing, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Hao ChenThe Second Clinical Medical School, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Guihua XuSchool of Nursing, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.ORCID 0000-0002-1415-8891
Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine · CNJiangsu University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has been accepted as a complementary therapy for knee osteoarthritis. However, the efficacy and safety of the intervention were still conflicting and uncertain. Meanwhile, the quality of methodology and evidence in the field was unknown.

objectiveTo summarize the characteristics and critically evaluate the quality of methodology, as well as the evidence of systematic reviews (SRs) on TCM for knee osteoarthritis.

methodsFive electronic databases were searched from inception to April 2016. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by AMSTAR and ROBIS. The quality of the evidence was determined using the GRADE approach.

resultsTen SRs were included. The conclusions suggest that TCM provides potential benefits for patients with knee osteoarthritis. These benefits include pain relief, functional improvement, and presence of few adverse events. Limitations of the methodological quality mainly included the lack of a-priori protocol or protocol registration and incomprehensive literature search. A list of excluded studies was also not provided. The overall quality of evidence in the SRs was poor, ranging from "very low" to "low," mainly because of the serious risk of bias of original trials, inconsistencies, and imprecision in the outcomes.

conclusionsTCM generally appears to be effective for knee osteoarthritis treatment. However, the evidence is not robust enough because of the methodological flaws in SRs. Hence, these conclusions on available SRs should be treated with caution for clinical practice.

Indexed as

Medicine, Chinese TraditionalHumansOsteoarthritis, Knee

Identifiers

PMID29267324
PMCPMC5739454
OpenAlexW2776977066

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.