ReviewFrontiers in allergy2026
Traditional Chinese medicine for pediatric adenoid hypertrophy: an Umbrella review of methodological, reporting, and evidence quality.
Review in Frontiers in allergy, 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
Objective: To conduct an umbrella review evaluating the methodological quality, reporting completeness, and certainty of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for pediatric adenoid hypertrophy (AH). Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang databases from inception to March 2026, with no language restrictions. Eligible systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on TCM for pediatric AH were included. Two reviewers independently performed screening, data extraction, and quality assessment using AMSTAR-2, PRISMA 2020, and GRADE. Discrepancies were resolved by consulting a third reviewer. Results: Ten systematic reviews and meta-analyses encompassing 122 RCTs and 9,772 participants were included. All included reviews were rated as having low or critically low methodological quality and inconsistent reporting standards. Existing reviews reported possible improvements in clinical symptoms and adenoid-related outcomes with TCM interventions. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously because of methodological limitations, risk of bias in the underlying trials, publication bias, imprecision, and clinical heterogeneity. Conclusion: Current review-level evidence on TCM interventions for pediatric AH remains methodologically weak and uncertain. The included systematic reviews showed low or critically low methodological quality, incomplete reporting, and limitations in the certainty of evidence. Future studies should prioritize well-designed randomized controlled trials, standardized outcome reporting, and rigorously conducted systematic reviews.
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.