SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2024
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Pleiotropic Bioactivity of Caterpillar Fungus, Orange Cordyceps, and Cordycepin: Insight from Integrated Network Pharmacology and Food and Drug Regulatory Framework.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Nephroprotective mechanism of Kunkui Baoshen decoction in diabetic kidney disease: Targeting the HERC2/NCOA4-mediated autophagy-dependent ferroptosis pathway.World journal of diabetes · 2025Article
- A novel biomarker Ins60/ApoA for predicting diabetic kidney disease in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: a pilot study.Frontiers in medicine · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: This study aimed to synthesize the evidence of the comparative effectiveness and safety of Methods: Eight databases were searched from their inception to May 2023. Systematic reviews (SRs) of Results: Fourteen SRs were included, whose methodological quality was assessed as high (1/14) or critically low (13/14). After combining additional searching, 157 RCTs were included, involving 13,143 participants. The quality of the RCTs showed some concerns (155/157) or high risk (2/157). Jinshuibao capsules and tablets, Bailing capsules and tablets, and Zhiling capsules were evaluated. Compared to RASi, adding either of the Conclusion: Combining Systematic Review Registration: INPASY202350066.
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.