ReviewEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2022
A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis about the Efficacy and Safety of
Review in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Targeting Therapeutic Windows for Rheumatoid Arthritis Prevention.Chinese journal of integrative medicine · 2024Review
- Long noncoding RNA/circular RNA regulates competitive endogenous RNA networks in rheumatoid arthritis: molecular mechanisms and traditional Chinese medicine therapeutic significances.Annals of medicine · 2023Review
- A comprehensive review ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of various conventional synthetic DMARDs, including Methods: We retrieved the related literature from online databases and supplemented it by using a manual retrieval method. Data was extracted from the literature and analyzed with STATA software. Results: A total of 21 trials (5,039 participants) were identified. Assessment of ACR20 response found that TwHF combined with methotrexate (MTX) had the greatest probability for being the best treatment option among the treatments involved, while TwHF used singly was second only to TwHF combined with MTX. Assessment of ACR50 response found that TwHF combined with MTX ranked second in all treatment options after cyclosporine A (CsA) combined with leflunomide (LEF) and TwHF alone, followed by TwHF combined with MTX. Assessment of ACR70 response found that CsA combined with LEF ranked first, TwHF combined with LEF ranked second, TwHF combined with MTX ranked third, and TwHF used singly ranked fourth. In the safety analysis, TwHF had the least probability of adverse event occurrence, followed by TwHF combined with MTX, which ranked first and second, respectively. Conclusion: Compared with the current csDMARDs for treating RA, the efficacy of TwHF was clear, and TwHF combined with MTX performed well under various endpoints. In the future, large, rigorous, and high-quality RCTs are still needed to confirm the benefits of TwHF therapy on RA.
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.