ArticleMedicine2020
Comparative efficacy of Chinese herbal injections combined with GP regimen chemotherapy for patients with advanced NSCLC: A protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2020. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Seven oral traditional Chinese medicine combined with chemotherapy for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: a network meta-analysis.Pharmaceutical biology · 2024Article
- Chinese herbal medicine injections (CHMIs) for chronic pulmonary heart disease: A protocol for a Bayesian network meta-analysis.Medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany research has indicated that some Chinese herb injections (CHIs) might be beneficial in combination with chemotherapy, however, with inconsistent results. Hence, the purpose of this network meta-analysis is to evaluate different CHIs plus cisplatin and gemcitabine (GP) with GP alone in terms of clinical efficacy and safety for treating patients with advanced NSCLC.
methodsA comprehensive systematic search of clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science (ISI), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journals Full-Text Database (VIP), Wanfang Database and China Biological Medicine Database (CBM) databases will be conducted to identify eligible studies up to the date of May 2020. The primary outcome measures objective response rate and adverse reactions (nausea and vomiting, leukopenia). The secondary outcome measures median survival time (MST), disease control rate, and quality of life. The methodological qualities, including the risk of bias, will be evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool, while confidence in the cumulative evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The network meta-analysis will be performed using WinBUGS 14 and Stata 15.1 software.
resultsBased on the current evidence, the potential rank of the efficacy and safety of CHIs plus GP chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC will be assessed, and a prioritization regimen will be summarized.
conclusionEvidence from this systematic review could be useful for patients, clinical practitioners, and guideline-makers to select an optimum proposal of CHIs plus GP for advanced NSCLC. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: It is not necessary for ethical approval because it is based on published studies. The protocol will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal or presented at a topic-related conference. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020167142.
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.