ReviewPharmaceutical biology2024
Comparative efficacy and safety of Chinese medicine injections as an adjunctive therapy for cervical cancer in Chinese patients: a network meta-analysis.
Review in Pharmaceutical biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of Chinese medicine injection combined with concurrent chemoradiotherapy in the treatment of esophageal cancer: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative efficacy and safety of Chinese patent medicines as an adjunctive therapy for diabetic peripheral neuropathy: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Pharmaceutical biology · 2024Pooled it
- Therapeutic potential and molecular mechanisms of Yi-Yi-Fu-Zi-Bai-Jiang-San in the treatment of colorectal cancer.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Exploration of key pathogenic mechanisms and potential intervention targets of the traditional Chinese medicine Coptis chinensis in the treatment of cervical cancer based on network pharmacology and molecular docking techniques.Translational cancer research · 2025Article
- Potential of non-Western medicines in chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer.World journal of clinical cases · 2025Article
- Elucidating the Mechanisms of Astragalus Membranaceus in Colorectal Cancer Patients through Bioinformatics Analysis.Current medicinal chemistry · 2025Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextChinese medicine injections (CMIs) are widely used as adjuvant therapy for cervical cancer in China. However, the effectiveness of different types of CMIs remains uncertain.
objectiveTo assess the effectiveness and safety of CMIs when used in conjunction with radiotherapy (RT) or concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), particularly in combination with cisplatin (DDP), docetaxel plus cisplatin (DP), and paclitaxel plus cisplatin (TP). MATERIALS AND
methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in databases including CNKI, WanFang, VIP, SinoMed, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science from inception to September 2023. We calculated the risk ratio with a 95% confidence interval and the surface under the cumulative ranking area curve (SUCRA) for the clinical efficacy rate (CER), the efficacy rate by Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), and the rates of leukopenia reduction (LRR) and gastrointestinal reactions (GRR).
resultsForty-seven RCTs were included, including nine CMI types:
conclusionsThe optimal recommendation depends on whether CMIs are used with radiotherapy or concurrent chemoradiotherapy. More high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm further and update the existing evidence.
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.