SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine decoctions combined with conventional therapy for pediatric asthma: a 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to explore the potential comparative effectiveness of various traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) decoctions plus conventional biomedical treatment (CBT) versus CBT alone in pediatric asthma using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods: Seven databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to 24 March 2025 that evaluated TCM decoctions in the treatment of pediatric asthma. The Bayesian NMA was conducted using R 4.4.1 and Stata 15.1. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool (Review Manager 5.4.1), and interventions were tentatively ranked by surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Results: A total of 21 RCTs involving 2,068 patients and 9 distinct TCM decoctions were included. The risk of bias was high or unclear in all studies included, with particular concerns regarding allocation concealment and blinding. Compared with CBT alone, Qing Qi Hua Tan Tang (QQHTT) + CBT significantly improved forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) (mean difference [MD] 1.20; 95% credible interval [CrI] [1.10, 1.40]). Ma Xing Shi Gan Tang (MXSGT) + CBT significantly increased peak expiratory flow (PEF) (MD 12.00; 95% CrI [8.00, 17.00]). According to SUCRA, QQHTT + CBT (SUCRA = 99.9%) and MXSGT + CBT (SUCRA = 97.1%) ranked highest for FEV1 and PEF. Conclusion: Sensitivity analyses confirmed the stability of the results regarding FVC and IgG, with Ma Xing Shi Gan Tang He Su Ting Wan (MXSGTHSTW) + CBT and Xiao Qing Long Tang (XQLT) + CBT which was ranked first in all analyses. For FEV1, the top-ranked interventions (QQHTT, Da Qing Long Tang [DQLT], MXSGTHSTW) remained in the top three across all analyses, with minor changes in ranking attributable to differences in inclusion criteria across studies. For PEF, the rankings in sensitivity analysis 1 were influenced by a reduction in the number of eligible treatments. For IgE, no decoction showed statistically significant differences, and the rankings were sensitive to the conditions of the analysis. Although QQHTT and MXSGT demonstrated statistical advantages in this NMA, serious methodological limitations exist in the included studies, particularly the lack of blinding and allocation concealment. Moreover, the inability to fully ensure the comparability of TCM decoctions means that these findings should be regarded as preliminary, hypothesis-generating and exploratory. Systematic Review Registration: identifier CRD420251120217.
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.