ArticleMedicine2020
The clinical efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine in the treatment of recurrent aphthous stomatitis: A protocol of systematic review and 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 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of total glucosides of paeony in the treatment of recurrent aphthous ulcers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy of hyaluronic acid for recurrent aphthous stomatitis: a systematic review of clinical trials.Clinical oral investigations · 2021Pooled it
- Factors influencing mental health and oral health-related quality of life in population with recurrent aphthous stomatitis: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in oral health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this meta-analysis was to summarize and identify the available evidence from studies to estimate the clinical value of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in the treatment of recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS) and provides clinicians with evidence on which to base their clinical decision making.
methodsThis review will include all studies comparing clinical efficacy of TCM in the treatment of RAS. The search strategy will be performed in 9 databases. We will not establish any limitations to language and publication status, published from inception to the August 2020. Two reviewers will screen, select studies, extract data, and assess quality independently. Outcome is clinical efficacy, pain relief, duration of wound healing, effect on wound healing, rate of recurrence, adverse events, and safety. The methodological quality including the risk of bias of the included studies will be evaluated. We will carry out statistical analysis using RevMan 5.3 software.
resultsThis study will summarize current evidence to assess the efficacy and safety of TCM in the treatment of RAS.
conclusionThe findings of this study will provide helpful evidence for the clinician, and will promote further studies, as well as studying the value of TCM. REGISTRATION NUMBER: INPLASY202080126 (DOI number: 10.37766/inplasy2020.8.0126).
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.