SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2026
Comparative effectiveness of traditional Chinese medicine treatment strategies for insomnia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 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
Objective: Insomnia causes daytime impairment and reduced quality of life. We evaluated the comparative efficacy and safety of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) treatment strategies for insomnia. Methods: Nine databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, SinoMed) were searched through January 2026 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Primary outcomes were ISI and PSQI scores; secondary outcomes included clinical efficacy and adverse events (AEs). Data were synthesized using frequentist network meta-analysis. Results: Twelve RCTs involving 1,260 participants were included, evaluating five strategy nodes: TCM alone, TCM plus Western medicine (WM), WM alone, placebo, and CBT-I. For ISI, TCM plus WM ranked highest (SUCRA 89.7%) and significantly improved scores versus placebo (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.42-5.68) and WM (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.08-3.56). For PSQI, TCM plus WM showed the highest probability of improvement (SUCRA 71.9%) with greater reduction versus placebo (MD -2.31, 95% CI -3.65 to -0.97). For clinical efficacy, SUCRA values were 86.6% for TCM plus WM, 77.2% for TCM, 20.9% for WM, and 15.3% for placebo. For AEs (higher SUCRA indicating better safety), SUCRA values were 94.8% for WM, 43.9% for TCM plus WM, 31.1% for placebo, and 30.2% for TCM. Sensitivity analysis excluding secondary insomnia confirmed robust findings. Conclusion: Integrated TCM-WM and TCM therapies demonstrate clinical efficacy and acceptable safety for insomnia management. Systematic review registration: The review protocol was prospectively registered in the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (INPLASY) (Registration number: INPLASY202680041; DOI: 10.37766/inplasy2026.8.0041).
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.