SynthesisChinese journal of integrative medicine2024
Benefit-Risk Assessment of Chinese Medicine Injections for Primary Liver Cancer Based on Multi-criteria Decision Analysis.
Synthesis in Chinese journal of integrative medicine, 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the benefit-risk of 3 commonly used Chinese medicine injections, Aidi Injection (ADI), Cinobufagin Injection (CINI) and Compound Kushen Injection (CKI), in the treatment of primary liver cancer (PLC), so as to provide a reference for clinical decision-making.
methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ADI, CINI and CKI in the treatment of PLC published in the databases of China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, China Science and Technology Journal Database, SinoMed, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were retrieved from January 2020 to October 2022. The data of benefit and risk indicators were combined to obtain the effect value. The multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) model was applied to build the decision tree. The benefit value, risk value and benefit risk value of the 3 injections in PLC treatment were calculated. Monte Carlo simulation was carried out to calculate the 95% confidence interval and probability of differences among the 3 injections, so as to optimize the evaluation results.
resultsA total of 71 RCTs were included. The benefit values of ADI, CINI and CKI combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) were 42, 38 and 36, respectively. The risk values were 42, 25 and 37, respectively. The benefit risk values were 42, 31 and 37, respectively. The benefit risk differences of ADI vs. CINI, ADI vs. CKI, and CKI vs. CINI were 11 (-0.86, 17.75), 5 (-5.01, 11.09), and 6 (-1.87, 12.63), respectively. The probability that ADI superior to CINI, ADI superior to CKI, and CKI superior to CINI was 96.26%, 77.27%, and 92.62%, respectively.
conclusionBased on the results of MCDA model, CINI combined with TACE has the greatest risk in the treatment of the PLC. Considering the efficacy and safety, the possible priority of the 3 Chinese medicine injections combined with TACE in the treatment of PLC is ADI, CKI and CINI.
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.