ArticleMedicine2019
Green tea extract for treatment of cancers: A systematic review protocol.
Article in Medicine, 2019. 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.
- Green Tea, A Medicinal Food with Promising Neurological Benefits.Current neuropharmacology · 2021Review
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
backgroundPrevious clinical studies suggested that green tea extract (GTE) may benefit patients with a variety of cancers. However, its efficacy is still inconclusive. Thus, the objective of this study will systematically collate the clinical studies testing its efficacy and safety for cancers.
methodsWe will perform a systematic review of clinical studies assessing the efficacy of GTE in variety of cancers. We will search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, MEDILINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) using a comprehensive strategy. We will also screen the reference lists of relevant studies to identify any additional studies for potential inclusion. All databases will be searched up to February 1, 2019. All eligible case-control studies and randomized controlled trials will be included in this study. Two independent authors will review all searched literature. Upon inclusion of trials, we will extract data by using a predefined standardized form. The risk of bias assessment will be evaluated by using Cochrane risk of bias tool. We will use RevMan 5.3 software to pool the data and carry out meta-analysis.
resultsThe primary outcome includes overall response rate. The secondary outcomes comprise of overall survival, progression-free survival, the disease control rate, and any adverse events.
conclusionsThe results of this study will contribute to the understanding of the efficacy of GTE in the setting of cancers and promote future research of GTE in patients with cancers. DISSEMINATION AND ETHICS: The results of this systematic review are expected to be published through peer-reviewed journals. This study does not need ethic approval, because it does not utilize individual patient data. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019125111.
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.