Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36747185›Full record

ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2023

Benefit-risk assessment of traditional Chinese medicine preparations of sinomenine using multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Gao Xiang, Min Gao, Huirong Qin, Xiaolan Shen, Huilian Huang, Xiaoqiang Hou, Zhitao Feng

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. JAK/STAT signaling in diabetic kidney disease.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Gao Xiang *The First College of Clinical Medical Sciences, China Three Gorges University, Yichang, 443003, Hubei, China.
Min Gao *Yichuan Community Health Service Center, Shanghai, 200065, China.
Huirong QinThe First College of Clinical Medical Sciences, China Three Gorges University, Yichang, 443003, Hubei, China.
Xiaolan ShenThe First College of Clinical Medical Sciences, China Three Gorges University, Yichang, 443003, Hubei, China.
Huilian HuangAffiliated Renhe Hospital of China Three Gorges University, Yichang, 443001, Hubei, China.
Xiaoqiang HouThe First College of Clinical Medical Sciences, China Three Gorges University, Yichang, 443003, Hubei, China. hxqhjz@163.com.
Zhitao FengInstitute of Rheumatology, the First College of Clinical Medical Sciences, China Three Gorges University, Yichang, 443003, Hubei, China. fengzhitao2008@126.com.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81703783
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveA multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) model was used to evaluate the benefits and risks of traditional Chinese medicine preparations of sinomenine alone or in combination with conventional drugs in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to provide a basis for the rational clinical application of sinomenine.

methodsA study search was performed using six major databases, and Review Manager 5.3 was used for data analysis. Then, an MCDA model evaluation system was established for the treatment of RA with sinomenine preparations, and the benefit values, risk values, and total benefit-risk values of sinomenine preparations alone or in combination with conventional drugs were calculated using Hiview 3.2 software. Finally, Monte Carlo simulations were performed using Crystal Ball embedded in Excel software to calculate the 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), and the probability of the differences between the 2 drug regimens was determined to optimize the evaluation results.

resultsForty-four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Quantitative assessment of the MCDA model showed that the sinomenine preparation alone offered less benefits than when combined with conventional drugs with a benefit difference of 20 (95% CI 3.06, 35.71). However, the risk of the combination was significantly lower with a risk difference of 13(95% CI -10.26, 27.52). The total value of the benefit-risk of sinomenine alone and in combination with conventional drugs was 46 and 53 at 60% and 40% of the benefit-risk ratio of the two dosing regimens, respectively, with a difference of 7 (95% CI -4.26, 22.12). The probability that the comprehensive score of the combined regimen is greater than that of sinomenine alone is 90.1%, and the evaluation was steady.

conclusionThe benefit-risk of the combined application regimen of sinomenine is greater than that of sinomenine alone.

Indexed as

Arthritis, RheumatoidMedicine, Chinese TraditionalDecision Support TechniquesHumansMorphinansRisk AssessmentMorphinanssinomenineBenefit-risk assessmentMulticriteria decision analysisRheumatoid arthritisSinomenineTraditional Chinese medicine

Identifiers

PMID36747185
PMCPMC9901080

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.