Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30791729›Full record

SynthesisIntegrative cancer therapies

Meta-Analysis of 5-Fluorouracil-Based Chemotherapy Combined With Traditional Chinese Medicines for Colorectal Cancer Treatment.

Peng Chen, Wei Ni, Tian Xie, Xinbing Sui

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Integrative cancer therapies. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. CanFrontiers in pharmacology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Study on the Mechanism of Competing Endogenous Network of 'Current computer-aided drug design · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. American journal of translational research · 2020
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Peng Chen1 Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Wei Ni2 Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Tian Xie1 Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Xinbing Sui2 Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Hangzhou Normal University · CNShanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This meta-analysis evaluates the clinical evidence for the addition of traditional Chinese medicines (TCMs) to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based regimens for colorectal cancer (CRC) in terms of tumor response rate (TRR). Five electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of 5-FU-based chemotherapy combined with TCMs compared to the same 5-FU-based regimen. Forty-five randomized controlled trials were involved in this study, and all the data were analyzed by Stata software (version 14.0). Our results suggested that the TRR of the group with TCMs combined with 5-FU-based regimens was higher than that in the group with 5-FU regimens alone (risk ratio [RR] 1.36 [1.25-1.49], I

Indexed as

AdultAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsColorectal NeoplasmsDrugs, Chinese HerbalFemaleFluorouracilHumansMaleMedicine, Chinese TraditionalMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicDrugs, Chinese HerbalFluorouracil5-fluorouracilcolorectal cancermeta-analysistraditional Chinese medicine

Identifiers

PMID30791729
PMCPMC7242800
OpenAlexW2912304419

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.