ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Efficacy and safety of oral Chinese medicine combined with chemotherapy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), a leading cause of global cancer mortality, often presents at advanced stages with limited efficacy from standard chemotherapy. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of six oral traditional Chinese medicines (TCMs) combined with chemotherapy for NSCLC. Methods: Following PRISMA-NMA guidelines, a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 36 randomized controlled trials (RCTs, Results: Compared to chemotherapy alone, Tongguanteng (TGT, Conclusion: HS and TGT, potentially through their bioactive components, may enhance chemotherapy efficacy in NSCLC by targeting immune and metabolic pathways. However, these conclusions need further verification. Findings should be interpreted cautiously due to potential bias, limited RCT numbers, and the geographical concentration of studies. Future research should isolate compound-specific effects and validate mechanisms in global trials.
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.