SynthesisJournal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan2024
Traditional Chinese Medicine in the treatment of recurrent respiratory tract infections in children: an overview of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses.
Synthesis in Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan, 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.
- Study on subtyping and Traditional Chinese Medicine treatment of depression based on machine learning and text mining.Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate and summarise the evidence from published Meta-analyses/systematic reviews (MAs/SRs) of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) in the treatment of recurrent respiratory tract infections (RRTIs) and to provide a scientific basis for the clinical treatment of RRTIs with TCM.
methodsStudies were retrieved from Chinese and English databases including the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang database, China Science and Technology Journal Database, SinoMed, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and EMbase from their establishment date to March 2023. Involved studies were screened, extracted, and evaluated for quality by two researchers independently. The a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR) 2 scale was used for methodological quality evaluation, as well as the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement for report quality evaluation, the risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool for risk of bias, and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) quality assessment tool for evidence quality.
resultsTwenty MAs/SRs studies were included, including analyses of 274 original studies involving 38 335 patients with RRTIs. The AMSTAR 2 scale evaluation results showed that 19 studies were of very low quality and one of moderate quality. The ROBIS evaluation results showed that 11 MAs/SRs were at high risk and nine at low risk of bias. The PRISMA 2020 report quality showed the included studies had scores between 23.5 and 35.5, among them one with high quality, 17 with moderate quality and two with low quality. The GRADE system results showed that among 126 outcome indicators, only 17 had moderate quality of evidence, 27 had low quality, 82 had very low quality, and none had high quality.
conclusionsThe MAs/SRs methodological quality of using TCM for treatment RRTIs is generally poor, the quality of reports as well as of evidence is generally low, and the risk of bias is high; therefore we should treat these results with caution.
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.