SynthesisScientific reports2025
Efficacy and safety of AiDi injection in treating primary liver cancer: a systematic review on 70 randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
AiDi injection (ADI) has been widely used for primary liver cancer (PLC), and numerous clinical trials in China have been conducted to compare the efficacy of ADI with other treatments for PLC. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate ADI for PLC. PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, and WanFang Database were searched to select randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated ADI for PLC, with outcomes including disease control rate (DCR), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life (QoL), and serious adverse events (SAEs). The RoB2 tool was used to assess RCTs. Meta-analysis based on a random-effects model computed the overall effect sizes using odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses, meta-regression, and publication bias were also conducted. The strength of evidence was assessed using the GRADE method. This study included 70 RCTs involving 5283 PLC patients. The overall RoB of RCTs was assessed as having some concerns. The effect size of OR was 2.86 (95% CI [2.41, 3.40]) with statistical significance (P < 0.00001) for DCR. The OR demonstrated statistically significant effect sizes of 2.12 (95% CI [1.84, 2.45]; P < 0.00001), 3.89 (95% CI [3.08, 4.90]; P < 0.00001), and 0.21 (95% CI [0.12, 0.36]; P < 0.00001) for ORR, QoL, and SAEs, respectively. Moreover, subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and meta-regression analyses found consistent results. Most publication bias analyses showed insignificant differences. The strength of evidence was rated as moderate. ADI combination therapy demonstrated significant efficacy and safety in PLC patients. Nevertheless, further strong evidence through more high-quality RCTs is warranted to support these findings.
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.