ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2024
Efficacy and safety of danshen class injections in the treatment of coronary heart disease: a network meta-analysis.
Review 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of Traditional Chinese Medicine in alleviating symptoms associated with myocardial bridge: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Cardiovascular Benefits ofFood science & nutrition · 2026Review
- Computational-experimental identification of bioactive component combinations from Salvia miltiorrhiza for cardiovascular protection.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Dihydrotanshinone as a Natural Product-Based CYP17A1 Lyase Inhibitor for Hyperandrogenic Disorders.Biomolecules · 2026Article
- A retrospective clinical analysis of inappropriate Xiangdan Injection use: clinical risk profiling and computational hypothesis generation.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Danshen [Salvia miltiorrhiza Bunge (Lamiaceae; Salviae miltiorrhizae radix et rhizoma)] class injections (DSCIs) are widely used in the treatment of coronary heart disease (CHD). However, there are various types of DSCIs available on the market, and it remains uncertain which DSCI has the best clinical efficacy, as well as which one is most effective in regulating inflammatory markers and oxidative stress indicators. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare the therapeutic effects of different DSCIs to identify the optimal DSCI for the treatment of CHD. Methods: The databases searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of DSCIs for CHD included the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. The search period spanned from the inception of each database up to June 2024. NMA was conducted using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 16.0 software. Results: A total of 106 studies including 14,979 patients, involving 10,931 patients, with 5,640 in the experimental group and 5,291 in the control group. And ten DSCIs were extracted, namely: Danhong injection (DH), Danshen injection (DS), Danshenchuanxiongqin injection (DSCXQ), Dansenduofensuanyan injection (DSDFSY), Danshenfen injection (DSFZ), Fufang Danshen injection (FFDS), Guanxinning injection (GXN), Sodium Tanshinone IIA Sulfonate injection (STS), Xiangdan injection (XD), Shenxiongputaotang injection (SXPTT). The results of NMA showed that, XD injection significantly enhances clinical efficacy; STS is more effective in reducing hs-CRP levels; DSDFSY shows better efficacy in decreasing IL-1 and increasing NO levels; DSCXQ has a greater advantage in reducing IL-6 levels; GXN is more effective in regulating SOD levels; and DH is better at reducing MDA levels. Conclusion: The combined treatment of DSCIs and WM more significant efficacy in patients with CHD compared to WM treatment alone, including clinical efficacy evaluation, inflammatory markers, and oxidative stress markers. Overall, DSDFSY and DSCXQ show better performance in clinical efficacy evaluation and regulation of inflammatory markers, while DH exhibits a more stable effect in regulating oxidative stress. However, larger sample sizes and high-quality RCTs are still necessary to further compare the various DSCIs. Systematic Review Registration: [PROSPERO], identifier [CRD42024548928].
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.