ArticleMedicine2019
Herbal medicine for benign prostatic hyperplasia: A protocol for a systematic review of controlled trials.
Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extracts ofNutrients · 2021Article
- Effect of acetogenin fraction ofRedox report : communications in free radical research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHerbal medicine has been used to manage benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and the associated lower urinary tract symptoms, but its effects are not yet fully understood. The purpose of this review is to assess the efficacy and safety of herbal medicine as a treatment for BPH. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Thirteen databases will be searched for relevant studies from inception to the present date. We will include randomized controlled trials assessing herbal medicine for the treatment of BPH. The methodological qualities, including the risk of bias, will be evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool, while confidence in the cumulative evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required, as this study is based on the review of published research. This review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated both electronically and in print.
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.