ReviewIntegrative cancer therapies
Efficacy and Safety of Shenyi Capsule (Ginsenoside Rg3) as Adjuvant Therapy for Cancer: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
Review in Integrative cancer therapies. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bioactive Constituents of Ginseng in Cancer Therapy: Molecular Mechanisms, Translational Potential, and Advanced Delivery Strategies.International journal of biological sciences · 2026Review
- Comment on: Efficacy and Safety of Shenyi Capsule (Ginsenoside Rg3) as Adjuvant Therapy for Cancer: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.Integrative cancer therapiesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Shenyi Capsule (SC) combined with conventional anticancer therapies through a comprehensive assessment of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs), identify limitations in current evidence, and provide evidence-based guide for clinical practice and research.
methodsRegistered in PROSPERO (CRD42024573610), this study searched 8 Databases from inception to November 10, 2024. Two separate reviewers were responsible for selecting studies, collecting data, assessing quality, and evaluating the potential for bias, with this research incorporating only SRs/MAs based on randomized controlled trials and utilizing 4 tools (AMSTAR-2, PRISMA 2020, ROBIS, GRADE) to evaluate methodological quality and risk of bias.
resultsThirteen SRs/MAs were included, focusing on 4 cancer types. AMSTAR-2 evaluations revealed no high quality studies. Compliance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines was below 50% for most items, with major deficiencies including lack of protocol registration, incomplete abstracts and search strategies, inappropriate or missing risk-of-bias assessments, insufficient descriptions of data transformation methods, absence of heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses, and failure to report funding sources. ROBIS indicated high bias risk in 11 studies. GRADE assessment of 109 outcomes showed evidence quality as moderate (40.37%), low (34.86%), or very low (24.77%). DISCUSSION: SC may enhance efficacy and safety as an adjuvant cancer therapy. However, methodological flaws in existing SRs/MAs limit reliability. Future research should prioritize standardized SR/MA protocols and RCT designs to improve evidence quality, reduce bias, and strengthen clinical applicability.
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.