ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Overview of systematic reviews on Chinese patented oral medicines for promoting blood circulation and removing blood stasis combined with western medicine in the treatment of coronary heart disease angina pectoris.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: To evaluate the methodology quality, reporting quality, and evidence quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on Chinese patented oral medicines that promote blood circulation and remove blood stasis combined with conventional Western medicine in the treatment of coronary heart disease angina pectoris. The aim is to identify and address methodological issues in systematic reviews of Chinese patented oral medicines for promoting blood circulation and removing blood stasis in angina pectoris. This study also offers methodological guidance for future research design and implementation, and provides a basis for clinical decision-making. Methods: A systematic search was performed using CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, CBM, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases, covering the period from the inception of each database to July 18, 2024, and meta-analyses on randomized controlled trials were included. Methodological quality was evaluated using AMSTAR-2, reporting quality using PRISMA 2020, and evidence quality of the outcome indicators using GRADE. Results: Twenty meta-analyses were examined, involving a total of 41,231 patients with angina pectoris. The methodological quality of all studies was rated as "critically low," with notable deficiencies in the registration of the study protocol, study inclusion criteria, assessment of individual study risk of bias, evaluation of the likelihood of publication bias, and discussion of the effects of publication bias on the results. The assessment of the three qualities mentioned above revealed common issues, including incomplete abstracts, lack of characteristics for pooled outcomes, failure to report risk of bias across studies, missing registration information, lack of accessibility details for protocols, and unreported modifications to registered protocols or plans. Evidence quality assessment revealed that 16 outcome indicators were rated as "moderate," 29 as "low," and 46 as "very low." Conclusion: Despite the demonstrated efficacy and safety of Chinese patented oral medicines that promote blood circulation and remove blood stasis in the adjuvant treatment of angina pectoris, the low methodological and reporting quality of current systematic reviews and meta-analyses compromises the reliability of these findings. Future research should focus on standardizing study design and reporting to improve the reliability of evidence.
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.