ArticleIntegrative medicine research2026
Clinical evidence on integrated Chinese-Western medicine for rheumatoid arthritis.
Article in Integrative medicine research, 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: Chinese medicine (CM) and the integrated Chinese-Western medicine (ICWM) have been recognized and commonly used in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study aimed to leverage the AI-empowered Clinical Evidence for Integrated Chinese-Western Medicine (ACE-iMed) platform to identify clinical evidence on CM and ICWM for RA, categorize and assess it by literature type, and provide evidence summaries. Methods: Following the ACE-iMed methodology, we first constructed a dedicated literature database for RA and identified clinical questions (CQs) and outcomes of interest to clinicians in the management of RA. Furthermore, for each specific CQ, we performed target searches and screening within the database, extracted data, assessed risk of bias/methodological quality, performed data analysis and provided evidence summaries. Results: Following literature searches and deduplication, 11,635 records were used to construct the RA and CM literature database. Across 18 questions covering ten major CM interventions and two comparisons, 556 records were ultimately identified, including 17 clinical practice guidelines/consensus statements, 35 systematic reviews, and 504 randomized controlled trials. Seven (38.9%) of the 18 CQs were supported by evidence from all three literature types. This study selected and presented evidence summaries for two CQs. Details and summaries of included studies for all CQs are available on the ACE-iMed platform. Conclusion: This study and relevant ACE-iMed platform provide a structured overview of clinical evidence on both CM and ICWM questions regarding RA, which can support clinicians in accessing evidence rapidly and identifying evidence distribution patterns and research gaps, and may inform future research and evidence-based practice.
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.