ArticleMedicine2020
Treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis with ursodeoxycholic acid combined with traditional Chinese medicine: A protocol for 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Liver cirrhosis: current status and treatment options using western or traditional Chinese medicine.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveUrsodeoxycholic acid is the priority drug of primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) and is usually combined with traditional Chinese medicine. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the benefits of integrated Chinese and western interventions for PBC.
methodsSearched the randomized controlled trials in PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, CBM, Wanfang, VIP databases. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used for methodological quality assessment and all data analysis was performed using Revman5.3 and Stata14.2 software.
result30 randomized controlled trials involving 10 interventions with a total of 1948 participants were included. Identified the direct and indirect evidence of trials, and used network meta analyses ranked the benefits of different interventions based on pairwise meta analysis. The primary outcom was clinical efficacy rate. Secondary outcome was liver function, including alkaline phosphataseand total bilirubin.
conclusionThe conclusion of this systematic review provide credible evidence - based for the relative advantages of integrated Chinese and western interventions for PBC.
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.