ReviewIntegrative medicine research2021
Evidence for the medicinal value of Squama Manitis (pangolin scale): A systematic review.
Review in Integrative medicine research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The anti-cancer effect and mechanism of animal scale-derived extract on malignant melanoma cells.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Can Substitutes Reduce Future Demand for Wildlife Products: A Case Study of China's Millennial Generation.Human ecology: an interdisciplinary journal · 2022Article
- The zoonotic and natural foci characteristics of SARS-CoV-2.Journal of biosafety and biosecurity · 2021Review
- Traditional Chinese medicine treatment for benign thyroid nodules: Literature review.Tzu chi medical journalReview
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSquama Manitis (pangolin scale) has been used in traditional Chinese medicine for thousands of years. However, its efficacy has not been systematically reviewed. This review aims to fill the gap.
methodsWe searched six electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI), WanFang Database and SinoMed from inception to May 1, 2020. Search terms included "pangolin", "Squama Manitis", "Manis crassicaudata", "Manis javanica", "Malayan pangolins", "Manis pentadactyla", "Ling Li", "Chuan Shan Jia", "Shan Jia", "Pao Jia Zhu", "Jia Pian" and "Pao Shan Jia". The Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) assessment tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case control studies (CCSs).
resultsAfter screening, 15 articles that met the inclusion criteria were finally included. There were 4 randomized controlled trials, 1 case control study, 3 case series and 7 case reports. A total of 15 different diseases were reported in these studies, thus the data could not be merged to generate powerful results. Two RCTs suggested that Squama Manitis combined with herbal decoction or antibiotics could bring additional benifit for treating postpartum hypogalactia and mesenteric lymphadenitis. However, this result was not reliable due to low methodological quality and irrational outcomes. The other two RCTs generated negative results. All the non-RCTs did not add any valuable evidence to the efficacy of Squama Manitis beacause of small samples, incomplete records, non-standardized outcome detection. In general, currently available evidence cannot support the clinical use of Squama Manitis.
conclusionThere is no reliable evidence that Squama Manitis has special medicinal value. The removal of Squama Manitis from Pharmacopoeia is rational.
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.