SynthesisRenal failure2024
Fermented
Synthesis in Renal failure, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of traditional Chinese medicineFrontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Pleiotropic Bioactivity of Caterpillar Fungus, Orange Cordyceps, and Cordycepin: Insight from Integrated Network Pharmacology and Food and Drug Regulatory Framework.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of fermented
methodsRandomized controlled trials were searched from four Chinese and four English electronic databases and three clinical trial registries up to July 2023. Methodological quality was assessed by using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2.0. Risk difference (RD) or risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsFourteen trials testing three types of FOSM products (Bailing, Zhiling, and Jinshuibao capsules) involving 1271 participants injected contrast agents were included. For the risk of bias, all trials were rated as some concerns. Compared with routine preventive procedure (RPP) (saline hydration and alprostadil), FOSM products plus RPP showed beneficial effects in reducing the incidence of CA-AKI (14.62% and 5.35%, respectively; RD -0.06, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.03). Subgroup analysis showed that Bailing/Jinshuibao plus RPP demonstrated lower incidence of CA-AKI compared to RPP. However, there was no statistically significant difference between Zhiling with RPP and RPP in the incidence of CA-AKI. Additionally, only when FOSM products were taken before injection of the contrast, it was superior to RPP in reducing the incidence of CA-AKI. There was no statistical difference in adverse events between these two groups.
conclusionsLow certainty evidence suggests that preventive oral use of FOSM products as an adjuvant agent was safe and might decrease the incidence of CA-AKI. However, high-quality placebo-controlled trials are needed to confirm its benefit.
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.