SynthesisJournal of evidence-based medicine2026
Evidence Map Analysis on Randomized Controlled Trials: Chinese Patent Medicines and Classic Traditional Chinese Medicine Prescriptions.
Synthesis in Journal of evidence-based 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the status and methodological quality of randomized controlled trials published in 2024 on Chinese patent medicines and Classic Traditional Chinese Medicine Prescriptions, providing evidence for clinical practice and policy.
methodsWe systematically searched multiple Chinese and English databases and trial registries for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on Chinese patent medicines (CPMs) and Classic Traditional Chinese Medicine Prescriptions (CTCMPs) published in 2024. Two researchers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane RoB tool. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated using Kappa statistics and intraclass correlation coefficient. Spearman's correlation and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were performed to analyze factors influencing methodological quality.
resultsIn 2024, 1874 RCTs were included (1550 CPM, 324 CTCMP). Circulatory and digestive diseases predominated in CPM and CTCMP studies, respectively. Two-arm "Chinese medicine plus Western medicine" designs were mainstream. CPM RCTs favored physical/chemical outcomes, while CTCMP RCTs prioritized symptoms/signs outcomes; 169 patient-reported outcomes were identified. Most studies had small samples (100 cases) and were single-center. Methodological quality revealed adequate randomization but serious deficiencies in allocation concealment and blinding. Ethics approval (CPM≈68.5%, CTCMP≈61.1%) and trial registration (CPM≈3.8%, CTCMP≈0.9%) were suboptimal. Funding, higher journal IF, and multicenter design were positively associated with ROB scores.
conclusionsThis evidence mapping reveals a significant disconnect between the quantity and quality of randomized controlled trials in Traditional Chinese Medicine. Persistent methodological weaknesses undermine evidence reliability. Future research should prioritize methodological rigor, adequate statistical power, and prospective trial registration. There is an urgent need to develop a dedicated evaluation framework that captures both methodological quality and clinical value.
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.