Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34925003›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2021

Dosage Modification of Traditional Chinese Medicine Prescriptions: An Analysis of Two Randomized Controlled Trials.

Rongrong Zhou, Yujiao Zheng, Xuedong An, De Jin, Fengmei Lian, Xiaolin Tong

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Rongrong ZhouDepartment of Endocrinogy, Guang'anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Yujiao ZhengDepartment of Endocrinogy, Guang'anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Xuedong AnDepartment of Endocrinogy, Guang'anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
De JinDepartment of Endocrinogy, Guang'anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Fengmei LianDepartment of Endocrinogy, Guang'anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Xiaolin TongDepartment of Endocrinogy, Guang'anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) prescriptions lack standardization due to the complex composition of the prescribed herbs, the unclear mechanism of the formulas, and a lack of scientific data to support the dose-response relationship. Here, we proposed a new clinical strategy of dosage modification for TCM prescriptions to evaluate the clinical efficacy and guide the clinical medication. This study used two TCM prescriptions for the treatment of newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) to explore the key indications and the most appropriate critical values of dosage modification by analyzing two randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In this study, the indications refer to a change in the indicators from baseline at a certain time point (week 4, week 8, week 12), which could predict the change in outcome indicators, and the critical values refer to the change ranges closely related to the decrease in HbA1c at week 12. In Study 1, the correlation analysis between the change range of indicators at three time points (weeks 4, 8, and 12) from baseline and the decrease in HbA1c at week 12 from baseline (HbA1c 012) was carried out to screen the related indications. Next, we evaluate the related indications and the respective critical values to determine the key indicators, indications, and the most appropriate critical value. We conducted a correlation between the change range of key indicators (obtained from the result of Study 1) at three time points from baseline and HbA1c 012 to screen the key indications in the drug group, high-dose group, and low-dose group in Study 2. Key indications with critical values were determined to investigate the most appropriate critical value in the three groups separately. In Study 1, the key indicator was FBG, the key indication was FBG 04, and the most appropriate critical value was 0.5 mmol/L. In Study 2, the key indication was FBG 04 and the most appropriate critical value was 0.6 mmol/L in the drug group. In the high-dose group, the key indication was FBG 04, and the most appropriate critical value was 0.3 mmol/L. In the low-dose group, the key indication was FBG08, and the most appropriate critical value was 0.1 mmol/L. In addition, we summarized a verification strategy for dosage modification.

Indexed as

critical valuedosage modificationindicationindicatortraditional Chinese medicine

Identifiers

PMID34925003
PMCPMC8672220

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.