SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of the effects of plant active substance on quality of life in breast cancer patients.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Plant-derived active substances are increasingly recognized as potential adjuvant therapies in breast cancer treatment, with emerging evidence suggesting their positive impact on both treatment outcomes and quality of life (QoL). This study aims to evaluate the effects of fifteen active substances-soy capsules, Helixor A, Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed across PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to January 2025. The primary outcomes of interest included QoL, fatigue, pain, physical functioning, nausea, and role and emotional functioning. Statistical analyses were carried out using StataMP 15.1 software. Treatment efficacy was assessed using Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve (SUCRA) probabilities. Additionally, cluster analysis was conducted to examine the multidimensional effects of natural extracts across these seven clinical outcomes. Results: After screening, 18 eligible studies were included, encompassing 2062 patients and evaluating 15 substances. The analysis incorporated patient-reported outcomes from multiple trials: QoL (11 studies), fatigue (10 studies), pain (8 studies), physical functioning (8 studies), nausea (7 studies), role functioning (7 studies), and emotional functioning (7 studies). Based on SUCRA values, Conclusion: The network meta-analysis indicates that Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420251006422.
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.