Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32508948›Full record

ReviewEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2020

Efficacy and Safety of Sinomenine Preparation for Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Randomized Controlled Trials.

Shan-Shan Lin, Chun-Xiang Liu, Jun-Hua Zhang, Hui Wang, Jing-Bo Zhai, Jing-Yuan Mao, Xian-Liang Wang

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shan-Shan LinFirst Teaching Hospital of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin 300381, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0702-6540
Chun-Xiang LiuEvidence-Based Medicine Center, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin 301617, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4063-3729
Jun-Hua ZhangEvidence-Based Medicine Center, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin 301617, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4043-1967
Hui WangEvidence-Based Medicine Center, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin 301617, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4234-2151
Jing-Bo ZhaiEvidence-Based Medicine Center, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin 301617, China.
Jing-Yuan MaoFirst Teaching Hospital of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin 300381, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9882-7406
Xian-Liang WangFirst Teaching Hospital of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin 300381, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6160-5650
Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CNFirst Teaching Hospital of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of sinomenine preparation (SP) for treating ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

methodsClinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SP for treating AS were systematically identified in six electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), and Wanfang Databases from the inception up to 31 October 2019. Cochrane's risk of bias tool was used to assess the methodological quality and Review Manager 5.3 software was used to analyze data.

resultsA total of 12 RCTs involving 835 patients were finally included. According to interventions, RCTs were divided into two types. The intervention in 10 RCTs was SP combined with conventional pharmacotherapy (CPT) versus CPT and that in 2 RCTs was SP alone versus CPT. The results of the meta-analysis showed that, compared with CPT alone, SP combined with oral CPT has better improvement in BASDAI (WMD = -1.84, 95% CI [-3.31, -0.37],

conclusionsThis study shows that oral SP may be effective and safe in the treatment of AS. Due to the low methodological quality of the included RCTs and the limitations of the meta-analysis, it is still necessary to carry out more multicenter, large-sample, and high-quality RCTs to further verify the conclusions. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018099170), and the review was constructed following the PRISMA guidelines (Annex 1).

Identifiers

PMID32508948
PMCPMC7245668
OpenAlexW3025940353

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.