SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2024
Clinical efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal injections in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 140 randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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.
- Optimizing the Future: A Game Theory to Tumor Therapeutic Strategies.Biological procedures online · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aim: Chinese herbal injection (CHI) is a widely used preparation for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment to alleviate the adverse drug reactions and enhance the clinical efficacy of chemotherapy. However, its efficacy and safety in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) remain poorly understood owing to the lack of high-level evidence in the face of a wide variety of CHIs. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of CHIs in combination with PBC regimens in the treatment of mid- and advanced NSCLC. Methods: Systematic evaluation and meta-analysis were conducted as per the Preferred Reporting Project for Systematic Evaluation and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Seven databases were comprehensively searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through August 1, 2022. The quality of each study was evaluated based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Statistical analysis was performed using Revman 5.3, with dichotomies expressed as risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were selected as the primary outcomes, with quality of life (QoL) and toxic side effects as secondary outcomes. Results: A total of 140 RCTs were included in this study. The results of the meta-analysis suggested that, compared with PBC alone, PBC combined with CHIs significantly improved the ORR (RR=1.35, 95% CI: 1.30-1.41, P<0.001), DCR (RR=1.15, 95% CI: 1.13-1.18, P<0.001) and QoL (RR=1.29, 95% CI: 1.24-1.33, P<0.001). Moreover, the combination treatment reduced chemotherapy-induced leukopenia (RR=0.69, 95% CI: 0.64-0.75, P<0.001), anemia (RR=0.70, 95% CI: 0.62-0.79, P<0.001), thrombocytopenia (RR=0.68, 95% CI: 0.62-0.75, P<0.001), nausea and vomiting (RR=0.69, 95% CI: 0.63-0.76, P<0.001), diarrhea (RR=0.59, 95% CI: 0.48-0.73, P<0.001), and constipation (RR=0.68, 95% CI: 0.54-0.86, P=0.001). Conclusion: According to the available evidence, CHIs in combination with PBC can improve clinical efficacy and reduce the toxic side effects in the treatment of advanced NSCLC. However, considering the study's limitations, more rigorous and high-quality studies are needed to further confirm the results. Systematic review registration: https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-1-0104/, identifier INPLASY202210104.
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.