ReviewIntegrative cancer therapies
Current Characteristics of Herbal Medicine Interventions for Cancer on Clinical Databases: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Review in Integrative cancer therapies. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Tongluo Jiedu as an adjuvant therapy for oral cancer.World journal of clinical cases · 2025Article
- Phytochemical synergies in BK002: advanced molecular docking insights for targeted prostate cancer therapy.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Development of topical silver nano gel formulation of Bixin: Characterization, and evaluation of anticancer activity.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2024Article
- Traditional Chinese Medicine in Regulating Tumor Microenvironment.OncoTargets and therapy · 2024Review
- Chinese Herbal Medicine Is Associated With Improved Survival in Patients With Advanced Lung Cancer Receiving Standard Treatment: A Nationwide Population-Based Propensity Score Matching Study.Integrative cancer therapiesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe utilization of herbal medicine has been noteworthy for treating cancer; however, there is not enough information regarding the characteristics of clinical trials of herbal medicine interventions. This study aimed to evaluate the characteristic of registered trials using herbal medicine interventions for cancer.
methodsA cross-sectional study was performed via the website ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN registry, Chinese clinical trial registry, and international clinical trials registry platform to gather associated registered clinical trials using an advanced search with the developed keyword strategy as of March 26, 2023. All obtainable information from the trials was collected without any restrictions to conduct a comprehensive review.
resultsA total of 169 registered trials were included for evaluation. Of all trials, 102 trials were eligible for this study. Countries from Asia registered the most trials (62.75%), and hospitals sponsored most of the trials (42.16%). Randomized, Phase 2, interventional trials were dominant, and approximately 64.71% of the trials anticipated recruiting less than 100 participants. More than half of the trials were from 2016 to 2023 (53.92%). While 45 trials were completed, only 16 trials had results for further analysis. According to the completed results, the types of herbal medicines from the trials mainly focused on lung, breast, and colorectal cancer.
conclusionThis study is the first to explore the characteristics of clinical trials of herbal medicine for cancer registered in large clinical databases. The acquired trials had relatively informative data; however, better-designed trials may be needed for health professionals to consider herbal medicine as an option when treating cancer patients.
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.