ArticleMedicine2020
Effect of Chinese medicine prescription on nephrotic syndrome: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of Chinese Herbal Injections for the Treatment of Primary Nephrotic Syndrome: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNephrotic syndrome (NS) is a common chronic recurrent kidney disease. Many trials have shown that Chinese medicine prescription (CMP) can effectively treat NS. The program aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CMP for NS.
methodsThis systematic evaluation will entail an electronic and manual search of all CMP for NS from inception to February, 2020, regardless of the publication status or language. Databases include PubMed, Embase, Springer, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registration Platform, the Chinese Medicine Database, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, the China Science Journal Database, and the Wanfang Database. Other sources of information, including bibliographies and meeting minutes for identified publications, will also be searched. A manual search for grey literature, including unpublished conference articles will be performed. Additionally, any clinical randomized controlled trials related to CMP for NS, regardless of the publication status and language limitations, will be included in the study. Study selection, data extraction, and research quality assessments will be conducted independently by 2 researchers. The main result was the total clinical efficacy rate or other validated scales after at least 2 weeks of treatment. Secondary outcomes included 24-hour urine protein quantification, blood urea nitrogen, serum creatinine, C-reactive protein, tumor necrosis factor-α, and interleukin 6, recurrence rates and adverse events during follow-up. Implement the Cochrane RevMan V5.3 bias assessment tool to assess bias risk, data integration risk, meta-analysis risk, and subgroup analysis risk (if conditions are met). Mean difference, standard mean deviation and binary data will be used to represent continuous results.
resultsThis study will provide a comprehensive review and evaluation of CMP for the treatment of NS.
conclusionThis study will provide new evidence for evaluating the effectiveness and side effects of CMP on NS. Since the data is not personalized, formal ethical approval is not required. INPLASY REGISTRATION NUMBER: INPLASY202040181.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.