ArticleOral health & preventive dentistry2024
A Comparison of Traditional Chinese Medicine and Multiple Conventional Therapy in Treating Oral Lichen Planus: A Network Meta-analysis.
Article in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate and compare the efficacy of seven conventional treatments and traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) combined therapies for oral lichen planus. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study employs PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Cnki to collect studies. After evaluating the quality and bias risk, RevMan 5.4.1 and R Gemtc package was utilised with a visual analogue scale and side effects as outcomes, to compare the efficacy of the seven treatments.
resultsThis study included 20 studies, with a sample size of 1669. Our results suggest that photodynamic therapy and TCM demonstrate the most significant decrease in visual analogue scale and the rank is as follows: photodynamic therapy > TCM > TCM combined with non-hormonal immunosuppressive drugs > TCM combined with glucocorticoids > chloroquine combined with glucocorticoids > non-hormonal immunosuppressive drugs > glucocorticoids. Among them, compared to glucocorticoids, photodynamic therapy (-1.55, 95% CI: (-3.09, -0.02)), TCM (-1.25, 95% CI: (-2.46, -0.06)) significantly outperform in statistics. Moreover, no side effects were reported by the photodynamic therapy treatment. In the comparison with non-hormonal immunosuppressive drugs, the result indicates TCM (-4.17, 95% CI (-8.24, -0.34)), glucocorticoids (-2.78, 95% CI (-5.69, -0.17)) and their combination (-2.83, 95% CI (-5.93, -0.05)) have a significantly lower probability of the appearance of side effects.
conclusionThis study indicates that TCM, from the perspectives of efficacy and the likelihood of side effects, outperforms all other common therapies, besides photodynamic therapy, in treating oral lichen planus.
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.