ArticleSystematic reviews2024
Comparative efficacy of eight oral Chinese patent medicines for dilated cardiomyopathy with heart failure: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of Chinese classical prescriptions for dilated cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Natural metabolites used in traditional Chinese medicine for cardiovascular diseases: pharmacological mechanisms, evidence, and future directions.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
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
Abstract
backgroundChinese patent medicines (CPMs) are widely used in China as an adjuvant treatment in dilated cardiomyopathy with heart failure (DCM-HF). However, comprehensive and systematic evidence supporting the beneficial effects of CPMs combined with current complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments against DCM-HF was limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to assess and rank the relative efficacy of eight different CPMs for DCM-HF.
methodsTo retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on the use of CPMs combined with CAM for DCM-HF, the databases of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science Periodical Database (CSPD), Chinese Citation Database (CCD), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), and ClinicalTrials.gov were comprehensively searched from their inception to 29 February 2024. The quality of the included RCTs was examined using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool, version 2.0 (RoB 2). Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probability values were applied to rank the relative efficacy. Bayesian network meta-analysis was designed to assess the efficacy of different CPMs.
resultsAfter applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 77 eligible RCTs involving 6980 patients were enrolled. The outcomes assessed included clinical effectiveness rate (CER), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD), 6-min walk test (6MWT), brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), and cardiac output (CO). The results of the NMA indicated that Qili Qiangxin capsule (QLQX), Wenxin granule (WX), Tongxinluo capsule (TXL), Qishen Yiqi dropping pill (QSYQ), Shexiang Baoxin pill (SXBX), Yangxinshi tablet (YXST), Yixinshu capsule (YXSC), and Getong Tongluo capsule (GTTL) combined with CAM significantly improved performance compared with CAM alone in treating DCM-HF. YXST + CAM (MD = - 9.93, 95% CI - 12.83 to - 7.03) had the highest probability of being the best treatment on account of the enhancement of LVEF. WX + CAM had the highest likelihood of being the best treatment considering the improvement in LVEDD (MD = - 11.7, 95% CI - 15.70 to - 7.79) and 6MWT (MD = - 51.58, 95% CI - 73.40 to - 29.76). QLQX + CAM (MD = - 158.59, 95% CI - 267.70 to - 49.49) had the highest likelihood of being the best intervention for the reduction in BNP. TXL + CAM (MD = - 0.93, 95% CI - 1.46 to - 0.40) might be the optimal choice for increasing CO levels in DCM-HF patients. No serious treatment-emergent adverse events were observed.
conclusionThis NMA suggested that adding CPMs to the current CAM treatment exerted a more positive effect on DCM-HF. Thereinto, QLQX + CAM, TXL + CAM, WX + CAM, and YXST + CAM showed a preferable improvement in patients with DCM-HF when unified considering the clinical effectiveness rate and other outcomes. Furthermore, due to the lack of information on CPMs against DCM-HF and the uneven distribution of included studies among interventions, more high-quality studies are needed to provide more robust evidence to support our findings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42023482669).
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.