ArticleMedicine2020
Herbal medicines for anorexia in lung cancer: 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, 0 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionLung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Anorexia is the most common cause of malnutrition in lung cancer patients as well as an independent prognostic factor for cancer survival. This review will deal with the clinical evidence of herbal medicine use for reducing anorexia in lung cancer patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Fourteen electronic databases will be searched from inception until October 2020. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing herbal medicines for anorexia in lung cancer patients. Interventions of any herbal medicines will be included. The methodological qualities of the included RCTs will be assessed via the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing the risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) instrument will be used to evaluate the confidence in the cumulative evidence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic literature review does not require an ethics review. This review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated electronically and in print. The review will be updated to inform and guide healthcare practices. REGISTRATION NUMBER: reviewregistry1038.
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.