SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2020
Meta-Analysis on the Chinese Herbal Formula
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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.
- Traditional Chinese Medicine and Colorectal Cancer: Implications for Drug Discovery.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOver the past five years the Chinese herbal formula (CHF) medicine,
methodsThis study systematically identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of XFG treatments for ALRI through July 2019 using four English-databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Ovid, and Web of Science) and four Chinese-databases (Sino-med database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP database, and the WANFANG database). We then performed a quality assessment and data analysis with Review Manager 5.3.5 and Stata 15.1.
resultsTwenty-one RCTs involving 3425 patients were randomly divided into an XFG group and a conventional medicine (CM) group. The results showed that the clinical efficacy rate (CER) of the XFG group was significantly higher than that of the CM group (
conclusionsThe findings of this meta-analysis support the use of XFG in the treatment of ALRI. However, these results should be treated with caution due to the significant heterogeneity and publication bias of existing data. Further well-designed and high-quality RCTs are needed to interrogate the efficacy and safety of XFG.
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.