SynthesisFrontiers in pediatrics2026
Meridian-based traditional Chinese medicine interventions for supportive care in children, adolescents, and young adults with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pediatrics, 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
Background: Meridian-based traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) interventions are increasingly used as adjunctive approaches to manage treatment-related toxicities in children, adolescents, and young adults (CAYAs) with cancer. However, their effectiveness remains uncertain. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating meridian-based TCM interventions for supportive symptom management in CAYAs with cancer. Eight electronic databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and CNKI, were searched from inception to October 2024, with an updated search conducted in November 2025. Primary outcomes included treatment-related symptoms such as nausea and vomiting. Continuous outcomes (e.g., symptom severity) and dichotomous outcomes (e.g., response rates) were analyzed separately. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: Twelve RCTs involving 732 participants were included. Compared with sham controls, meridian-based TCM interventions did not significantly reduce nausea severity (SMD: -0.25; 95% CI: -0.78 to 0.28) or vomiting frequency (SMD: -0.37; 95% CI: -0.90 to 0.16). When added to conventional antiemetic therapy, these interventions were associated with better control of nausea and vomiting than antiemetic therapy alone (OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.47). Evidence for fatigue and other supportive-care outcomes was limited and could only be synthesized narratively. The overall certainty of evidence was low because of methodological limitations, small sample sizes, and imprecision. Conclusion: The available sham-controlled evidence was insufficient to determine whether meridian-based TCM interventions improve chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in CAYAs with cancer. Their addition to conventional antiemetic therapy may provide symptomatic benefit, but the certainty of evidence is low. Future trials should be adequately powered and, where feasible, use multicenter designs, credible sham controls, appropriate blinding, prespecified protocols, validated and standardized symptom measures, and longer follow-up. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024607724, identifier: CRD42024607724.
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.