SynthesisMedicine2026
Evidence mapping and meta-analysis of traditional Chinese medicine for postmenopausal osteoporosis.
Synthesis in 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPostmenopausal osteoporosis (PMOP) is a common metabolic bone disorder characterized by estrogen deficiency - induced bone loss and increased fracture risk. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has demonstrated unique advantages in PMOP management, but comprehensive, standardized evidence synthesis remains limited.
methodsChinese and English databases (CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, SinoMed, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were systematically searched up to July 31, 2024. Eligible studies included interventional, observational, and evidence-based research. Data extraction and quality assessment followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 statement. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4 with random- or fixed-effects models depending on heterogeneity.
resultsA total of 319 studies were included: 232 interventional, 60 observational, 25 systematic reviews or meta-analyses, and 2 guidelines. Among 99 randomized controlled trials, TCM interventions significantly improved clinical efficacy (risk ratio = 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17-1.27, I2 = 55%) and reduced pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -2.15, 95% CI: -2.95 to - 2.17, I2 = 96%). TCM also enhanced bone mineral density at both lumbar (SMD = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.57-0.91, I2 = 90%) and femoral sites (SMD = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.41-0.80, I2 = 89%).
conclusionTCM interventions significantly improve bone density and pain outcomes in PMOP. However, high heterogeneity and moderate methodological quality highlight the need for high-quality, standardized clinical trials integrating syndrome differentiation.
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.