SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Comparative effectiveness of ten traditional Chinese herbal formulas for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: 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. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has emerged as a valuable adjunctive approach for respiratory diseases, with accumulating evidence supporting its efficacy in Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (AECOPD) management. However, most existing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have focused on evaluating single traditional Chinese herbal formulas as an add-on to conventional therapy (CT). The comparative efficacy among these formulas remains uncertain, creating a critical evidence gap that hampers clinical decision-making. Network meta-analysis (NMA) provides a methodological framework to address this limitation by enabling simultaneous comparison of multiple interventions. Methods: RCTs of these ten herbal formulas in combination with CT for the treatment of AECOPD were searched in five English and four Chinese databases. The search covered the period from the date of database inception to 20 August 2024, with a final update performed on 28 November 2025. The risk of bias of the included RCTs was critically assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials, version 2 (RoB 2). Bayesian NMA, pairwise meta-analysis (PMA), meta-regression, subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and publication bias analysis were carried out. The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: A total of 132 eligible RCTs involving 13,177 participants were included. Both PMA and NMA demonstrated that all ten herbal formulas combined with CT were more effective than CT alone in treating AECOPD. Based on the ranking results, Qingqihuatan decoction (QQHT), Erchen decoction combined with Sanziyangqin decoction (ECSZYQ), and Weijing decoction (WJ) had the highest probability of being the most efficacious interventions in improving lung function (FEV Conclusion: Based on the current evidence, QQHT and XQL appear to be the most promising herbal formulas. Nevertheless, given the low certainty of evidence, caution is warranted in interpreting these findings. The final selection in clinical practice should be guided by a comprehensive assessment of the patient's specific pathophysiological profile and individual factors. Further high-quality, head-to-head comparative studies are needed to validate these findings. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42024622734.
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.