ReviewMedicine2025
Comprehensive assessment of 18AA amino acid injections based on Chinese guidelines: A narrative review.
Review in 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
By systematically evaluating nine 18AA compounded amino acid injections using a percentage scoring method, we aim to provide a basis for hospitals to select compounded amino acid injections. According to the Rapid Guide for Drug Evaluation and Selection in Chinese Medical Institutions (Second Edition) released in 2023, relevant databases such as PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, drug labels, and clinical guidelines were searched for drug information. We used a percentage scoring method to score the nine 18AA compound amino acid injections marketed in China on 5 dimensions, including pharmacological properties (28 points), efficacy (27 points), safety (25 points), economy (10 points), and other attributes (10 points). We classified them into recommendation levels based on the scoring results, to objectively select and evaluate medicines. The final assessment result scores from highest to lowest were 18AA (71.50 points), 18AA-VII (66.77 points), 18AA-IX (66.63 points), 18AA-I (63.39 points), 18AA-II (61.56 points), 18AA-III (61.23 points), 18AA-V-SF (61.12 points), 18AA-V (58.75 points), and 18AA-IV (55.29 points). In the comprehensive overall assessment of amino acid formulations, 18AA-IX and 18AA-VII scored the highest in pharmacological properties and effectiveness, 18AA-IX and 18AA-V-SF excelled in safety, and 18AA scored the highest in economics and other attributes. When a healthcare organization introduces 18AA compounded amino acid injections to their hospital, they can refer to the assessment results and use the top 3 recommended medications: 18 AA, 18 AA-VII, and 18 AA-IX. Meanwhile, 18AA, which has the highest evaluation score and is >70, should be highly recommended as a new drug introduction and prioritized during drug adjustment and retention.
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.