SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Comparative effectiveness of non-pharmacological traditional Chinese medicine therapies for chronic fatigue syndrome: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a systemic disorder with symptoms, including persistent fatigue, unrefreshing sleep, anxiety, and depression, raising health concerns. The effectiveness of non-pharmacological Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) therapies for CFS has not been systematically investigated. Objective: This study was designed to investigate the comparative effectiveness of non-pharmacological TCM therapies for CFS. Methods: Searches of Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, CINHAL, Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang, VIP database, and SinoMed were conducted on January 1, 2026. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and CINeMA web application were used to assess the risk of bias. Pairwise meta-analysis and NMA were performed using Stata 18.0. Results: A total of 29 studies involving 2,234 participants were included in the analysis. Compared with the conventional care, moxibustion was associated with a reduction in overall fatigue (SMD, -1.84; 95% CI, -2.25 to -1.44). Massage was associated with reduced physical fatigue (SMD, -2.21; 95% CI, -2.65 to -1.77), mental fatigue (SMD, -2.05; 95% CI, -3.07 to -1.02), anxiety (SMD, -3.35; 95% CI, -6.64 to -0.05) and depression (SMD, -1.23; 95% CI, -1.76 to -0.69) vs. conventional care. Cupping therapy showed the greatest improvement in sleep quality (SMD, -4.60; 95% CI, -7.05 to -2.15) vs. conventional care. Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that within the non-pharmacological TCM clinical framework, moxibustion is more effective for overall fatigue. Massage better alleviated physical and mental fatigue, anxiety, and depression, while cupping improved sleep quality. These findings suggest that different non-pharmacological TCM therapies may have varying effects across multiple symptom areas. However, the results should be interpreted with caution, given the uncertainties in the available evidence and the limitations of the included studies. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, Identifier CRD420251113292.
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.