ArticleJMIR formative research2024
Web-Based Platform for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Traditional Chinese Medicine: Platform Development Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Endoscopic versus open vein harvesting for coronary artery bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Meta-Analysis of the Influence of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine on Cognitive Dysfunction After Hypertensive Intracerebral Hemorrhage.Brain and behavior · 2025Pooled it
- Computational renaissance in herbal medicine: A 20-year bibliometric deciphering of molecular dynamics simulations reshaping traditional Chinese medicine drug discovery.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2026Article
- A New Method for Identification of Ginseng Radix et Rhizoma Adulterated with Panacis Quinquefolii Radix.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 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: There are many problems associated with systematic reviews of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), such as considering "integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine" or treatment methods as intervention measures without considering the differences in drug use, disregarding dosage and courses of treatment, disregarding interindividual differences in control groups, etc. Classifying a large number of heterogeneous intervention measures into the same measure is easy but results in inaccurate results. In April 2023, Cochrane launched RevMan Web to digitalize systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We believe that this web-based working model helps solve the abovementioned problems. Objective: This study aims to (1) develop a web-based platform that is more suitable for systematic review and meta-analysis of TCM and (2) explore the characteristics and future development directions of this work through the testing of digital workflow. Methods: We developed TCMeta (Traditional Chinese Medicine Meta-analysis)-a platform focused on systematic reviews of TCM types. All systematic review-related work can be completed on the web, including creating topics, writing protocols, arranging personnel, obtaining literature, screening literature, inputting and analyzing data, and designing illustrations. The platform was developed using the latest internet technology and can be continuously modified and updated based on user feedback. When screening the literature on the platform, in addition to the traditional manual screening mode, the platform also creatively provides a query mode where users input keywords and click on Search to find literature with the same characteristics; this better reflects the objectivity of the screening with higher efficiency. Productivity can be improved by analyzing data and generating graphs digitally. Results: We used some test data in TCMeta to simulate data processing in a systematic review. In the literature screening stage, researchers could rapidly screen 19 sources of literature from among multiple sources with the manual screening mode. This traditional method could result in bias due to differences in the researchers' cognitive levels. The query mode is much more complex and involves inputting of data regarding drug compatibility, dosage, syndrome type, etc; different query methods can yield very different results, thus increasing the stringency of screening. We integrated data analysis tools on the platform and used third-party software to generate graphs. Conclusions: TCMeta has shown great potential in improving the quality of systematic reviews of TCM types in simulation tests. Several indicators show that this web-based mode of working is superior to the traditional way. Future research is required to focus on validating and refining the performance of TCMeta, emphasizing the ability to handle complex data. The system has good scalability and adaptability, and it has the potential to have a positive impact on the field of evidence-based medicine.
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.