SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Efficacy and safety of Chinese botanical drug decoctions for migraine: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Migraine is a common neurological disorder that substantially affects patients' quality of life. Chinese botanical drug decoctions are used in migraine management; however, the comparative efficacy and safety of different decoctions remain unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to compare multiple Chinese botanical drug decoctions for migraine using a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Methods: Seven electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP) were systematically searched from inception to 20 October 2025. Randomized controlled trials evaluating Chinese botanical drug decoctions for migraine were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROB 2.0 tool. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted using R software with the gemtc package. Four Markov chains were run simultaneously, with 50,000 iterations and a burn-in period of 20,000 iterations to ensure model convergence. Treatment ranking probabilities were estimated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Results: A total of 57 randomized controlled trials involving 6,005 patients were included. Network meta-analysis suggested that Sanpian Decoction (SPT) was associated with greater reductions in visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores, while Xuefu Zhuyu Decoction (XFZYT) ranked highest for reducing headache frequency and duration. Tongqiao Huoxue Decoction (TQHXT) had the highest probability of being among the most effective interventions based on SUCRA rankings. Conclusion: Chinese botanical drug decoctions may be associated with improvements in migraine-related outcomes. Among the evaluated interventions, SPT may be associated with greater reductions in pain intensity, XFZYT may be associated with reductions in attack frequency and duration, and TQHXT had the highest SUCRA-based ranking for overall efficacy. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution due to variability in study quality and the indirect nature of comparisons. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251176748.
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.