SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2024
Efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 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
- Severe renal toxicity following adjuvant envafolimab in a patient with ultra-hypermutated (POLE) stage II colorectal cancer: a case report.AME case reports · 2026Article
- Anti-Inflammatory Mechanisms and Translational Relevance ofJournal of inflammation research · 2026Review
- Combined bailing capsule and conventional therapies in the treatment of chronic renal failure: a meta-analysis and economic evaluation.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The effectiveness of using Methods: Several databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang, were systematically searched updated to March 25, 2024. We used the combined ratio (OR) and diagnostic ratio (DOR) to assess the therapeutic effect of Results: The present meta-analysis ultimately incorporated 15 studies comprising a total of 1,310 patients with RD. We pooled estimated the sensitivity, specificity as well as DOR from patient-based analyses with 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.84-0.93), 0.69 (95% CI: 0.59-0.77) and 18.0 (95% CI: 8.0-39.0), respectively. Moreover, we calculated the combined positive likelihood ratio (PLR) as well as negative likelihood ratio (NLR) to be 2.8 (95% CI: 2.1-3.9) and 0.16 (95% CI: 0.10-0.27), respectively. Additionally, area under the curve (AUC) of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) was calculated as 0.88 (95% CI: 0.85-0.90) reflecting prognostic accuracy. Subsequently, subgroup analysis indicated that the clinical efficacy of Conclusion: Our results indicate that Systematic review registration: www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier CRD42024559042.
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.