SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Chinese medicine interventions for cerebral small vessel disease-related cognitive impairment: a systematic review and 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cerebral small vessel disease-related cognitive impairment (CSVD-CI) is a common and clinically important challenge of cerebral small vessel disease, but effective therapeutic options remain limited. Chinese medicine interventions (CMIs) may be beneficial, although the evidence is uncertain. Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of CMIs for adults with CSVD-CI and assess evidence certainty. Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Methods: Eight databases were systematically searched from inception to 31 December 2025. Primary outcomes were cognitive function, mainly assessed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Secondary outcomes included total effective rate, Traditional Chinese Medicine syndrome score, selected biochemical and hemorheological indicators, and adverse events (AEs). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Results: Fifty RCTs involving 4,454 participants were included. Compared with conventional therapy alone, CMIs plus conventional therapy were associated with higher end-of-treatment MoCA and MMSE scores, and the pooled incidence of AEs did not differ significantly between the intervention and control groups. The overall risk of bias was predominantly unclear, whereas the certainty of evidence was low or very low. Conclusion: CMIs were associated with higher end-of-treatment cognitive scores; however, extreme heterogeneity, unclear risk of bias, and low evidence certainty substantially limit confidence in these findings. Available data are insufficient to establish long-term efficacy or safety. Multicenter, prospectively registered RCTs with standardized diagnostic criteria, intervention reporting, outcome selection, and safety monitoring are required. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251176394, identifier, CRD420251176394.
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.