ArticleMedicine2022
Comparative efficacy of Chinese herbal injections for septic shock: A protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2022. 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSeptic shock is a life-threatening syndrome. Despite Western medicine guidelines being continually updated on septic shock, the disease still has a high mortality rate. Chinese herbal injections (CHIs) are injections made from effective components of traditional Chinese medicine, which have a potential therapeutic effect on septic shock and are recommended as the adjunctive treatment for septic shock in China. Although pairwise meta-analysis has been published for category-single CHIs about treatment effects of septic shock, there is no meta-analysis comparing more than 3 various types of CHIs used for septic shock.
methodsChinese and English databases will be retrieved for randomized controlled trials from the establishment of the databases to September 30, 2021. Two reviewers will perform literature searches and data extractions while another 2 reviewers for risk assessments. RevMan V.5.4 software, Stata V.14.0 software, and R V. 4.1.1 software will be applied to perform pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis. We will apply the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the risk of bias while the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach will be used to summarize the results of the study. The PRISMA-P guideline was followed for this protocol.
resultsThe current study will explore the therapeutic effect of CHIs in the treatment of septic shock through pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis.
conclusionThis study will seek out the best-performed CHIs under various indicators for septic shock, providing supporting evidence for clinical selection of CHIs for septic shock.
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.