ArticleMedicine2020
Effect and safety of Chinese patent medicine capsules for recurrent angina pectoris after percutaneous coronary intervention: 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionRecurrent angina pectoris after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a common clinical syndrome, which seriously reduces the quality of life and health of patients, increases medical costs, and causes the risk of cardiogenic death. The efficacy of various western medicine improving angina symptoms has not been fully confirmed at the moment, whereas Chinese patent medicine capsules (CPMC) have been generally used in clinical practice due to the therapeutic efficacy and safety. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of CPMC for stable angina after PCI, designed to provide more evidence for clinical treatment.
methodsThis protocol was based on the previous reporting items. We will search 3 English databases (PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, and the Cochrane Library) and 3 Chinese databases (China Network Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Database, and Chinese Biomedicine) until January 2020. RCTs to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CPMC for recurrent stable angina pectoris after PCI will be included. The primary outcome will be assessed by major adverse cardiovascular events and angina attack frequency. We will use the criteria provided by Cochrane risk of bias tool for quality evaluation and risk assessment, and use the Revman 5.3 for meta-analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for systematic review and meta-analysis. The results of this review will be disseminated in a peer-review journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020164005.
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.