SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Efficacy and safety of different traditional Chinese medicine injections in the treatment of unstable angina pectoris: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Several studies have explored the efficacy and safety of various traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) injections for unstable angina pectoris. However, comprehensive systematic evidence confirming the advantages of these injections is still lacking. This Bayesian network meta-analysis was carried out to evaluate and compare the efficacy of different TCM injections in treating unstable angina pectoris. Methods: A systematic search was implemented across PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science, with the date of search cutoff being February 2024. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was utilized to evaluate the bias risk in the included studies. Results: A total of 44 studies, encompassing 4,362 patients with unstable angina pectoris and 21 types of injections, were included. Compared with the standard treatment group, Danhong injection (SMD = -1.1, 95% CrI: -2.0, -0.15), Danshen Chuanxiongqin injection (SMD = -1.9, 95% CrI: -3.7, -0.12), Ginkgo Damole injection (SMD = -2.5, 95% CrI: -4.8, -0.29), Puerarin injection (SMD = -1.8, 95% CrI: -3.2, -0.37), and Shuxuetong injection (SMD = -7.8, 95% CrI: -13, -2.3) were found to significantly reduce the frequency of angina attacks. However, no significant improvement was observed in the duration of angina episodes with any of the included TCM injections compared with the standard treatment group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events from TCM injections. Conclusion: Adjunctive treatment with TCM injections, in addition to conventional therapy, can remarkably reduce the frequency of angina attacks and demonstrates a favorable safety profile. However, it does not appear to significantly reduce the duration of angina episodes. Future studies should include more multicenter populations to validate our conclusions, as the population included in this study was predominantly Chinese. Systematic Review Registration: identifier [CRD42024501984].
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.