Evidence mapPaperPMID 36348487Full record

ReviewChinese medicine2022

Traditional Chinese medicine injections: where we are after 80-year development.

Wenwen Zheng, Yiyang Wu, Hanlu Gao, Defang Ouyang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Chinese medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  3. Safflower yellow inChinese herbal medicines · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Wenwen Zheng *Department of Clinical Laboratory, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Yiyang Wu *State Key Laboratory of Quality Research in Chinese Medicine, Institute of Chinese Medical Sciences (ICMS), University of Macau, Macau, China.
Hanlu GaoState Key Laboratory of Quality Research in Chinese Medicine, Institute of Chinese Medical Sciences (ICMS), University of Macau, Macau, China.
Defang OuyangState Key Laboratory of Quality Research in Chinese Medicine, Institute of Chinese Medical Sciences (ICMS), University of Macau, Macau, China. defangouyang@um.edu.mo.

Funding

the Science and Technology Development Fund (FDCT) FDCT/0108/2021/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) injection is the combination of modern pharmaceutical technology and traditional Chinese prescription, which was born in 1941 and played a great role in the backward medical conditions at that time. However, the debate over TCM injections has never stopped due to adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The regulation on TCM injections has been further strengthened since 2017, which has prompted many TCM injections to carry out re-evaluations on quality, safety, efficiency as well as pharmacoeconomics, which made significant changes and progress. This review presented an up-to-date analysis of the types, amounts, and ADRs of TCM injections based on the published data and literature. This review also summarized the potential reasons for the ADRs and re-evaluation strategies. This review will provide some useful clues for TCM injections and their clinical use.

Indexed as

EffectivenessPharmacoeconomicsQuality controlRe-evaluationSafety concernTraditional Chinese medicine injections

Identifiers

PMID36348487
PMCPMC9640875

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.