ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022
Efficacy and safety of Chinese medicine combined with balloon dilatation
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Therapeutic effect of Wendan Decoction combined with mosapride on gastroesophageal reflux disease after esophageal cancer surgery.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Balloon dilatation is widely used for patients with achalasia; however, the efficacy and safety of Chinese medicine combined with balloon dilatation for achalasia patients is still unclear. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the treatment effectiveness of treatment with Chinese medicine plus balloon dilatation versus balloon dilatation alone for patients with achalasia. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared the effectiveness of Chinese medicine plus balloon dilatation with balloon dilatation as examined in studies in the PubMed, Springer, Embase, Wiley-Blackwell, Chinese Journal Full-text Database, and the Cochrane library from their inception up to May 2019. The odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to calculate categories and continuous outcomes using the random-effects model. The inclusion of studies according to the PICOS (participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes) criteria, the assessment of risk of bias of included studies adhered to the Cochrane criteria guidelines. Results: The initial electronic searches produced 378 records, and 10 RCTs that recruited 504 achalasia patients were included in the final quantitative analysis. Except for other potential biases with moderate to high-risk bias of 20-40%, the other six items had a low-risk bias of 80-90%. Overall, we noted that patients who received the Chinese medicine plus balloon dilatation treatment had a greater incidence of improvement at 1 year (OR: 2.20; 95% CI: 1.45-3.33; P<0.001), and 5 years (OR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.23-2.74; P=0.003), and reduced the risk of gastroesophageal reflux (OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.24-0.76; P=0.004) than patients who underwent balloon dilation only. However, patients who received the Chinese medicine plus balloon dilatation treatment did not have a greater risk of perforation (OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.24-1.19; P=0.123) compared with patients undergoing balloon dilation. Finally, Chinese medicine plus balloon dilatation was associated with high esophageal sphincter pressure (WMD: 2.01; 95% CI: 1.19-2.84; P<0.001) compared with patients who underwent balloon dilatation only. Conclusions: Chinese medicine plus balloon dilatation had better effects after treatment than balloon dilatation alone for achalasia patients. Given the risk of bias of included studies, the conclusion should be made with cautions.
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.