SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Efficacy comparison of four different Chinese herbal mediciness in intervening acute respiratory distress syndrome: a bayesian network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is a critical condition with high ICU mortality. Despite treatments such as mechanical ventilation, outcomes remain poor, with in-hospital mortality reaching 40% and various complications negatively affecting patient prognosis. Chinese Herbal Medicines (CHM) offers a promising, safe, and reliable alternative therapy. When combined with Western symptomatic treatments, CHM can produce synergistic effects, enhancing the overall intervention and improving patient outcomes. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of four CHMs - Xuanbai Chengqi Decoction (XBCQD), Dachengqi Decoction (DCQD), Liangge Powder (LGP), and Fusu Agent (FSA) - in managing ARDS. Using a network meta-analysis (NMA), the study ranks these formulas based on key clinical indicators, including the mechanical ventilation duration (MVD), ICU length of stay (ICU-LOS), and the PaO Results: A comprehensive literature review identified 18 clinical studies involving 1,134 participants to assess the relative efficacy of the four CHMs. The findings indicated that XBCQD was the most effective in reducing MVD (SUCRA = 87.8%), followed by FSA (64.3%). FSA also demonstrated superior efficacy in shortening ICU-LOS (SUCRA = 73.9%) and improving the P/F ratio (92.2%), with XBCQD ranking second in both outcomes (67.6% and 72.6%, respectively). A significant difference was found between FSA and LGP in improving the P/F ratio (MD = 41.08; 95% CrI: 5.95, 76.22). In contrast, DCQD and LGP ranked lower across most outcomes. Notably, the difference between LGP and placebo in improving oxygenation was not statistically significant (MD = 22.06; 95% CrI: -2.22, 46.35). Conclusion: In combination with Western symptomatic treatments, XBCQD is the most effective intervention for reducing MVD in ARDS patients. FSA demonstrates superior efficacy in improving the P/F ratio and shortening ICU-LOS. However, these findings require further clinical validation to establish their 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.