ArticleMedicine2020
Effect and safety of oral Chinese patent medicine for heart failure: 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.
- Medical Conditions and Preference of Traditional Chinese Medicine: Results from the China Healthcare Improvement Evaluation Survey.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHeart failure (HF) is the terminal stage of various common cardiovascular diseases with quite a frequent readmission and a high mortality rate, and brings heavy financial burdens to families and society. Oral Chinese patent medicine (CPM) has been widely applied in the treatment of HF in China because of its simplicity, cheapness, convenience, and high efficiency. However, due to the large number and broad clinical selectivity of oral CPMs, there is a lack of uniformity and clinical application standardization. To choose more effective and safe medicine among so many oral CPMs is particularly essential for further improving the therapeutic effect. In this study, the efficacy and safety of different oral CPMs will be compared by a network meta-analysis (NMA), and the best CPM will be selected for the treatment of HF.
methodsAccording to the search strategy, 4 English and 4 Chinese databases will be searched from the construction of the library to July 31, 2020. The NMA will include clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of different oral CPMs in HF treatment. The methodological quality is assessed according to the bias risk assessment tool of Cochrane. The Bayesian NMA is performed by Aggregate Data Drug Information System (ADDIS), and the results are visualized using Stata 15.0 software. The GRADE approach is used to assess the quality of evidence and recommendation intensity.
resultsThe NMA will identify the best oral CPM in the complementary treatment of HF. A peer-reviewed journal will publish the results of the study.
conclusionThis study can provide reliable evidence for the efficacy and safety of oral CPMs in the treatment of HF, and help decision-makers and patients to select more effective and safer oral CPM. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: INPLASY202090053.
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.