SynthesisMedicine2024
Efficacy and safety of Buyang Huanwu Decoction in patients with spinal cord injury: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in 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.
- Buyang Huanwu decoction facilitates the repair of red nucleus neurons subsequent to spinal cord injury in rats via autophagy.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere has been growing interest in using the traditional Chinese herb Buyang Huanwu Decoction (BHD) as a potential treatment for spinal cord injury (SCI), owing to its long-used treatment for SCI in China. However, the efficacy and safety of BHD treatment for SCI remain widely skeptical. This meta-analysis aims to assess the safety and efficacy of BHD in managing SCI.
methodA comprehensive literature search was conducted across several databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and Sinomed, up to January 1, 2024. Randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating the safety or efficacy of BHD in SCI treatment were included. The analysis focused on 8 critical endpoints: Patient-perceived total clinical effective rate, American Spinal Cord Injury Association (ASIA) sensory score, ASIA motor score, somatosensory evoked potential, motor evoked potential, visual analog scale pain score, Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, and adverse events.
resultsThirteen studies comprising 815 participants met the inclusion criteria. No significant heterogeneity or publication bias was observed across the trials. The findings revealed significant improvements in the patient-perceived total clinical effective rate (OR = 3.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] = [2.43, 5.86]; P < .001), ASIA sensory score (mean difference [MD] = 8.22; 95% CI = [5.87, 10.56]; P < .001), ASIA motor score (MD = 7.16; 95% CI = [5.15, 9.18]; P < .001), somatosensory evoked potential (MD = 0.25; 95% CI = [0.03, 0.48]; P = .02), motor evoked potential (MD = 0.30; 95% CI = [0.14, 0.46]; P = .0002), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (MD = 1.99; 95% CI = [0.39, 3.58]; P = .01) in the BHD combination group compared to the control group. Additionally, there was a significant reduction in visual analog scale pain scores (MD = -0.81; 95% CI = [-1.52, -0.11]; P = .02) with BHD combination treatment, without a significant increase in adverse effects (OR = 0.68; 95% CI = [0.33, 1.41]; P = .3).
conclusionThe current evidence suggests that BHD is effective and safe in treating SCI, warranting consideration as a complementary and alternative therapy. However, given the low methodological quality of the included studies, further rigorous research is warranted to validate these findings.
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.