SynthesisIntegrative cancer therapies
Topical Traditional Chinese Medicines for Cancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Integrative cancer therapies. 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.
- Research hotspots and trends in the application of Chinese herbal medicine for cancer pain management: a bibliometric study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Integrating English and Chinese evidence on acupuncture and moxibustion for cancer-related fatigue (CRF): a decade of research and clinical recommendations.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Review
- Progress in Research on Alleviating the Symptoms Associated With Advanced Cancer Using Traditional Chinese Medicine.Pain research & management · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesSafe and effective management of cancer-related pain is a worldwide challenge. In the search for treatment options, natural products used in Chinese herbal medicines (CHMs) have received attention in clinical studies for their effects on cancer-related pain. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the clinical evidence for topically applied CHMs as adjunctive treatments for cancer pain management.
methodsNine biomedical databases and 4 clinical trial registries were searched for randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) that reported measures of pain and/or quality of life. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. Meta-analysis employed mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (random effects).
resultsTwenty (20) RCTs (1636 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were grouped based on the comparisons and outcome measures. For pain intensity, there was a greater reduction in the topical CHM group versus placebo (MD -0.72 [-1.04, -0.40]), no difference when compared to tramadol (MD -0.15 [-0.38, 0.08]), and a greater reduction when topical CHMs were combined with conventional analgesic medications (MD -0.67 [-0.93, -0.40]). Analgesic onset time was reduced in the CHM group compared to tramadol (MD -26.02 [-27.57, -24.47] minutes), and for CHMs combined with conventional medications (MD -19.17 [-21.83, -16.52] minutes). When CHMs were combined with analgesic medications, improvements were found for duration of analgesia (MD 1.65 [0.78, 2.51] hours), analgesic maintenance dose (MD -31.72 [-50.43, -13.01] milligrams/day), and quality of life.
conclusionAddition of topical CHMs to conventional analgesic medications was associated with improved outcomes for pain intensity, some other pain-related outcomes, and measures of quality of life. Limitations included methodological issues in some studies and considerable heterogeneity in some pooled results.
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.