SynthesisPloS one2023
Ginseng-containing traditional medicine preparations in combination with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of Atractylodes macrocephala-containing traditional Chinese medicine combined with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer: a systematic evaluation and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Transparency and reporting characteristics of randomized controlled trials with Chinese herbal medicine formulas interventions.Frontiers of medicine · 2024Article
- Mechanistic insights into the role of traditional Chinese medicine in treating gastric cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGinseng-containing traditional medicine preparations (G-TMPs) in combination with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy (FBC) are well-known treatments for advanced gastric cancer (AGC), with a superior efficacy to FBC alone. However, evidence regarding their efficacy remains limited. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of G-TMPs in combination with FBC for the treatment of AGC.
methodsEight electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using G-TMPs with FBC for the treatment of AGC. The primary outcome included the tumor response, while the secondary outcomes included the quality of life (QoL), proportions of peripheral blood lymphocytes, adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and levels of cancer biomarkers. The quality of evidence for each outcome was assessed using GRADE profilers.
resultsA total of 1,960 participants were involved in the 26 RCTs included. Patients treated with FBC plus G-TMPs had better objective response (risk ratio [RR] = 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.13 to 1.35, p < 0.00001) and disease control (RR = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.08 to 1.19, p < 0.00001) rates than those treated with FBC alone. Additionally, the combination group had a better QoL, higher proportions of CD3+ T cells, CD4+ T cells, and natural killer cells, as well as a higher CD4+/CD8+ T-cell ratio. Furthermore, lower levels of CA19-9, CA72-4, and CEA were confirmed in the combination treatment group. In addition, G-TMPs reduced the incidence of ADRs during chemotherapy.
conclusionIn combination with FBC, G-TMPs can potentially enhance efficacy, reduce ADRs, and improve prognosis for patients with AGC. However, high-quality randomized studies remain warranted. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Number: CRD42021264938.
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.