ArticleHeliyon2024
Efficacy of Xianling Gubao capsule vs. its combination therapy in the treatment of primary osteoporosis: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Traditional Chinese Medicine for osteoporosis management: from molecular mechanisms to drug discovery.Chinese medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the Xianling Gubao (XLGB) capsule alone and its combination therapy in primary osteoporosis (POP). Methods: Databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, and SinoMed were searched from their inception to January 16, 2024, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the XLGB treatment for POP. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of multiple interventions in the treatment of POP. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess the quality of RCTs included in the meta-analysis. Software Stata (version 15.0) was used for statistical analysis. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) method was used to present the findings from this NMA numerically and graphically by ranking multiple interventions. Results: A total of 107 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, involving 10,032 participants and 21 interventions. Meta-analysis showed that XLGB + calcium (Ca) + calcitonin (99.9 %) was the most desirable treatment option for improving clinical efficacy. XLGB + Ca + bisphosphonate (BP) was most effective for improving bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine, femoral neck BMD, and serum bone Gla protein (BGP). SUCRA values for improving these three outcome measures by XLGB + Ca + BP were 87.4 %, 77.2 %, and 84.3 %, respectively. XLGB + calcitonin was the optimal option in terms of safety evaluation and improving visual analogue scale (VAS), with the SUCRA values being 89.6 % and 94.9 %, respectively. Conclusions: The XLGB combination therapy is a desirable option for treating POP as it can effectively improve the therapeutic effects, BMD, and serum BGP, as well as relieve pain in patients with POP.
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.