SynthesisScientific reports2024
Comparative study of safflower yellow adjuvant to conventional treatment regimen and conventional treatment regimen on diabetic nephropathy.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 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.
- Pharmacological actions and applications of safflower flavonoids.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Diabetic nephropathy (DN) is one of the most important comorbidities of diabetic patients, which places large physiological and economic burdens on patients. Safflower yellow, a natural pigment extracted from the petals of safflower, has been put into adjuvant therapy. Databases including Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, MEDLINE and etc. will be searched for relevant articles. A meta-analysis was carried out to assess the efficacy and safety of safflower yellow adjuvant to conventional treatment regimen using mean differences (MD) and rate ratios (RR). A cost-effectiveness analysis was also conducted based on the result of meta-analysis. Finally, 28 articles involving 2251 patients were included in meta-analysis. The results showed that compared with conventional treatment, the fasting blood-glucose (FBG) [MD = 0.40], urinary albumin ejection rate (UAER) within 24 h [MD = 48.16], serum creatinine (Scr) [MD = 9.63], blood urea nitrogen (BUN) [MD = 1.73] were significantly lower and the clinical efficacy [RR = 1.28] was more remarkable in safflower yellow adjuvant to conventional treatment group. Our analysis suggested that safflower yellow adjuvant to conventional treatment regimen not only had better clinical efficacy but more cost-effective than conventional treatment regimen.
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.