ArticleMedicine2020
Chinese herbal preparations for chronic heart failure: Study protocol for an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research Advances in Cardio-Cerebrovascular Diseases ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2021Review
- Crude Radix Aconiti Lateralis Preparata (Fuzi) withMediators of inflammation · 2020Article
- Effect of Traditional Chinese Medicine Poge Heart-Saving Decoction on Cardiac Function in Heart Failure Rat Model.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChinese herbal preparations (CHPs) have been reported to be effective in the management of chronic heart failure (CHF); they are beneficial in improving cardiac function, reducing hospital stays and readmission. However, the credibility of their effectiveness evidence has not been evaluated. We aim to summarize and evaluate current effectiveness evidence of traditional Chinese medicine in the management of CHF.
methodsWe will search PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systemic Review (CDSR), and Web of Science from inception to December 2019 for systematic reviews that assessing the effectiveness of CHPs for CHF. The search will be performed without language restriction. Experimental interventions will include any type of CHPs, and control interventions will include placebo, sham interventions, usual care, or no controls. The primary outcome will be the changes in heart function classification defined by the New York Heart Association. Secondary outcomes include left ventricular ejection fraction, Six Minute Walk Test, other efficacy outcomes, and adverse events. We will use I statistics to assess the between-study heterogeneity in each meta-analysis, Eager test to detect publication bias, and the ratio of observed versus expected number of trials with positive findings. We will summarize the evidence and classify them into convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, or weak.
resultsThe results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval and patient consent are required since this study data is based on published literature. The results of the study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD 42019139649 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#joinuppage).
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.