SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Efficacy and safety of Compound Danshen Dripping Pills as an adjunct to conventional therapy for stable angina pectoris: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of Compound Danshen Dripping Pills (CDP) in the treatment of stable angina pectoris (SAP) and provide updated evidence regarding its clinical application. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in eight electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, and SinoMed, from inception to 31 May 2026. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CDP plus conventional therapy (CT) with CT alone or CT plus nitrates in patients with SAP were included. Primary outcomes included angina efficacy, electrocardiogram (ECG) efficacy, angina frequency, angina duration, and nitroglycerin consumption. Secondary outcomes included lipid profile, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and fibrinogen (FIB), while adverse events were assessed as safety outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 and Stata 18.0, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. Results: A total of 93 RCTs involving 10,208 participants were included. Compared with CT alone, adjunctive CDP was associated with improvements in angina efficacy (RR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.19-1.33), ECG efficacy (RR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.19-1.51), reduced angina frequency (SMD = -1.32, 95% CI: -1.79 to -0.84) and duration (SMD = -2.51, 95% CI: -3.58 to -1.45), and increased LVEF (SMD = 1.30, 95% CI: 0.24-2.37). Compared with nitrates plus CT, CDP plus CT also demonstrated comparable or superior improvements in angina efficacy (RR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.08-1.15), ECG efficacy (RR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.30-1.40), angina frequency, lipid profile, FIB, and several functional outcomes. CDP was generally well tolerated, with no increased risk of adverse events compared with CT alone and a lower incidence than nitrate-based therapy. However, the certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to very low, mainly due to methodological limitations and inconsistency among included studies. Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that CDP-containing regimens may improve symptomatic and functional outcomes in patients with SAP compared with CT alone or nitrate-containing regimens; however, the certainty of evidence remains limited, and well-designed RCTs are needed to confirm these findings. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/myprospero, Identifier CRD420261416404.
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.