SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Comparative efficacy of Traditional Chinese Medicine classical prescriptions for angina pectoris: a network 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of classical prescriptions from Shang han Lun (Treatise on Febrile Diseases) and Jin gui Yao lue (Synopsis of the Golden Chamber) combined with conventional biomedicine in the treatment of angina pectoris of coronary heart disease. Materials and Methods: Eight commonly used Chinese and English databases were searched for relevant clinical studies published before 25 December 2024. Revman 5.4 and Stata14.0 software were used for data analysis. Results: A total of 131 studies involving 11,292 participants (5,660 in intervention groups and 5,632 in control groups) were included. Most classical prescriptions combined with conventional biomedical therapy showed favorable associations with improvements in angina pectoris efficiency, electrocardiogram (ECG) efficiency, and Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) syndrome outcomes compared with conventional treatment alone. Subgroup analyses showed partially different patterns of relative efficacy among prescriptions, with LGZG demonstrating more consistent performance in stable angina pectoris, while other prescriptions showed variable rankings in unstable angina pectoris. For lipid-related and inflammatory outcomes, results were inconsistent across studies, and current evidence remains insufficient to support robust comparative conclusions among classical prescriptions. Regarding safety outcomes, GZFL combined with conventional biomedical therapy showed a relatively favorable safety profile, while other classical prescriptions demonstrated comparable rates of adverse events to conventional therapy. Conclusion: Classical prescriptions combined with conventional biomedical therapy may be associated with improvements in clinical outcomes of angina pectoris, with an overall acceptable safety profile observed across most intervention. However, due to limitations in study quality, heterogeneity, and indirect comparisons, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Further high-quality, multicenter randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these observations. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251029216.
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.