SynthesisPharmaceutical biology2020
Efficacy and tolerability of
Synthesis in Pharmaceutical biology, 2020. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Traditional Chinese Medicine is Associated with the Reduction in Endpoint Events in Patients with Gouty Arthritis: Cohort Study and Association Rule Analysis.International journal of general medicine · 2024Article
- The effectiveness and safety of lifestyle medicine and integrative therapies in inflammatory arthritis: an umbrella review using a hierarchical evidence gathering approach.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Qinpi Tongfeng Formula Combined with Bloodletting Therapy in the Treatment of Acute Gouty Arthritis: A Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
context
objectiveThe clinical studies of GSZD for the treatment of gout were systematically reviewed to evaluate its clinical efficacy and safety.
methodsAll randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to GSZD and gout were collected starting from the database establishment until 29 February 2020, from the Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, VIP and other databases. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed in strict accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) statement, and all analysis of the test was completed using Stata (SE12.0) and Revman (5.3).
resultsA total of 535 studies were searched, and 13 studies were included in our meta-analysis (
conclusionsOur present works suggested that GSZD could be considered as an effective alternative remedy for clinical treatment of gout. In addition, it also provides a scientific basis for GSZD to be better applied in clinic in the future.
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.