ReviewEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2018
Effectiveness and Safety of Compound Chinese Medicine plus Routine Western Medicine in In-Stent Restenosis: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.
Review in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the effects and safety of oral compound Chinese medicine (CCM) plus routine western medicine (RWM) in in-stent restenosis (ISR).
methodsVarious electronic databases (CBM, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library) were searched until April 2017. The quality of the included studies was evaluated, and meta-analyses were performed using RevMan5.3 and STATA 12.0 software. Moreover, funnel plot and Egger's publication bias plots were analysed to identify publication bias and adverse reactions were reported. A sensitive analysis was carried out according to the quality score.
resultsIn all, 40 RCTs involving 4536 patients were selected for this review. The pooled estimates of three studies showed that the benefit to the number of ISRs (NoR) was more substantial for CCM plus RWM than for RWM alone (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.57,
conclusionOral CCM plus RWM clearly benefitted patients with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) because it prevented and treated ISR better than was observed for either RWM alone or a CM placebo plus RWM.
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.