SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Randomized controlled trials of major oral traditional Chinese medicine preparations for postherpetic neuralgia: an evidence map.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To identify and synthesize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of oral traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), map the volume, methodological quality, and evidence distribution, identify evidence gaps, and inform future research. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, VIP Database, the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR), and China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM). RCTs published from database inception to 1 August 2025 were included. The evidence was summarized using evidence maps and narrative synthesis. Risk of bias in the included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 1.0). Results: A total of 357 RCTs were included, most were small studies with sample sizes ranging from 50 to 100 participants. Most studies reported diagnostic criteria and inclusion/exclusion criteria, however, limited attention was paid to TCM syndrome differentiation and its standardization. The main outcomes were pain degree, clinical effective rate, adverse reactions, sleep quality, negative emotions, and quality of life, however, outcomes such as recurrence and TCM syndrome scores were infrequently reported. Overall methodological quality was low, as assessed using the RoB 1.0. Conclusion: Although many included studies reported favourable findings, the formulas and preparations differed substantially in composition, and high-quality evidence remains limited. Future trials should better incorporate key features of TCM (e.g., syndrome differentiation), use standardized and clinically meaningful outcome measures, and strengthen trial design and reporting to reduce risk of bias and improve the credibility of evidence. Systematic Review Registration: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251110786, identifier CRD420251110786.
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.