ArticleMedicine2019
Chinese Herbal Medicine Versus Placebo for the Treatment Of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Protocol of Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of acetylcysteine on micro-inflammation and pulmonary ventilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
- Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine for Acute Guillain-barré Syndrome Treatment.Translational neuroscience · 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
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChinese herbal medicine (CHM) has been shown to be effective in the treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) by published meta-analyses. However, disease outcomes were inconsistent and heterogeneity was observed attributed to placebo-controlled studies. We present a protocol for a systematic review aiming to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of CHM comparing to placebo in the treatment of stable COPD, to provide robust evidence for the use of CHM in COPD.
methodsWe will comprehensively search the following 9 databases from inception to March 2019: Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WANFANG Database, Chinese Scientific and Technological Periodical Database (VIP) and Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM), and the Cochrane Library database. All clinical randomized controlled trials comparing CHM to placebo for the treatment of stable COPD in English or Chinese will be included. The primary outcome will be quality of life, symptom score and exacerbation frequency, and the secondary outcomes include traditional Chinese medicine syndrome score and effective rate, lung function, 6-minute walk distance, and adverse events. Data extraction and quality assessment will be performed independently by 2 reviewers. Data synthesis and risk of bias will be assessed using the Review Manager software. This protocol will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidance.
resultsThis systematic review and meta-analysis will provide a high-quality comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and safety based on current literature evidence of CHM intervention for stable COPD.
conclusionThe conclusion of this study will present the evidence of whether CHM is an effective and safe intervention for stable COPD patients.
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.