ArticleEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2020
Verification of the Efficacy and Safety of Qi-Replenishing Chinese Medicine in Treating Prediabetes: A Meta-Analysis and Literature Review.
Article in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparative clinical-related outcomes of Chinese patent medicines for cardiac hypertrophy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Pooled it
- Treatment options of traditional Chinese patent medicines for dyslipidemia in patients with prediabetes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- Effect and underlying mechanism of Huangjing Qianshi decoction in pre-diabetes mouse model.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQi-replenishing Chinese medicines (QCMs) are used for treating prediabetes in the traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) clinical practice. The aims of this meta-analysis were to (i) verify the efficacy and safety of QCMs in treating prediabetes and (ii) investigate the clinical outcomes between the trials complying with and not complying with the principle of "syndrome differentiation."
methodsWe included only randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) whose Jadad scores were not less than 4. The overall clinical outcomes, including the incidence rate of diabetes, normalization of blood glucose, changes in fasting blood glucose (FBG), 2 h postprandial blood glucose, HbA1c, and occurrence of adverse events, were evaluated. Subgroup analyses were performed.
resultsA total of 11 RCTs that enrolled 2210 patients with prediabetes were included. We observed that overall treatment with QCMs significantly ameliorated the clinical outcomes of prediabetes without increasing incidence of adverse events. The results of subgroup analyses revealed that prescribing QCMs complying with syndrome differentiation ameliorated all the clinical indices, whereas prescribing not complying with syndrome differentiation could not achieve significant amelioration in FBG and HbA1c levels. Furthermore, the subgroup with syndrome differentiation reported more adverse events.
conclusionsThe overall results suggested that QCMs are effective and safe in treating prediabetes. Results of subgroup analyses indicated that the groups with syndrome differentiation presented better efficacy but had a higher occurrence of adverse events. This study indicated the important role of the principle of syndrome differentiation in TCM and that the adverse events of QCMs cannot be ignored in TCM clinical practice.
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.