ArticleSystematic reviews2026
Blood activating and stasis removing Chinese patent medicine in perioperative period of PCI for myocardial infarction: a protocol for a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2026. 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
Abstract
backgroundMyocardial infarction (MI) poses a formidable health challenge, frequently necessitating management through percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, PCI comes with potential complications that can impact patient outcomes. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), particularly the utilization of Chinese patent medicines with blood-activating and stasis-resolving properties, offers another approach to enhance PCI efficacy and improve patient quality of life. The aim of this study is to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of blood activating and stasis removing Chinese patent medicines for the perioperative period of PCI for MI.
methodsThis systematic review and network meta-analysis will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive search strategy will be implemented across seven electronic databases to identify relevant studies. Eligible studies will be limited to randomized controlled trials that compare any Chinese patent medicine (added to standard care) with standard care or another treatment in patients in the perioperative period of PCI after MI. Two independent reviewers will screen all retrieved citations, extract pertinent data, and assess the risk of bias. We will conduct Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis and network meta-regression. To elucidate whether the intervention has an important impact on certain outcomes within the perioperative period of PCI for MI, we will conduct a patient values and preferences survey to determine the minimum important difference for outcomes. We will assess the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. DISCUSSION: This study will provide new insights into the efficacy and safety of blood activating and stasis removing Chinese patent medicines for the perioperative period of PCI for MI patients, providing help for future clinical practice and research. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this review. The findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal, presentations at scientific conferences, and outreach via various media platforms.
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.