SynthesisMedicine2026
Effectiveness of Chinese herbal medicine mouthwash in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients with endotracheal intubation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2026. 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
Abstract
backgroundTo systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Chinese herbal medicine mouthwash (CHMM) in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in patients with endotracheal intubation (ETT).
methodsComputer searches were conducted for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WANFANG DATA, Chinese Scientific and Technical Journal Database (VIP), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (SinoMed), PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL Database from the establishment to April 5, 2023. The data were analyzed by RevMan 5.3 software. The methodological quality of papers was evaluated by the Cochrane version 5.1.0 and the certainty of evidence was evaluated by the GRADE system.
resultsWe included 27 RCTs with 2426 patients. Most of the included studies were of poor methodological quality. Meta-analysis showed that CHMM (RR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.34-0.50, P < .00001, low-certainty evidence) or CHMM + routine oral care (RR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.18-0.56, P < .0001) could reduce the incidence of VAP compared to non-CHMM. CHMM may be superior to saline (low-certainty evidence) and chlorhexidine (moderate-certainty evidence) in preventing VAP (P < .05).
conclusionLow-certainty evidence shows that CHMM may be more advantageous in reducing the incidence of VAP compared to non-CHMM. However, due to some limitations and the low certainty of evidence, we cannot recommend CHMM for routine clinical use at this time. Large-scale and high-quality RCTs are also needed to definitively evaluate the safety and clinical benefits of CHMM in the future.
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.