SynthesisMedicine2025
Comprehensive evidence mapping of Chinese medicine for the treatment of pulmonary heart disease: A systematic assessment of efficacy and challenges.
Synthesis in Medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to assess the quality of evidence regarding the use of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) interventions in pulmonary heart disease (PHD) through a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant literature.
methodsA comprehensive search was performed across both Chinese and English databases, including CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, covering studies published up to April 2024. Eligible studies on TCM interventions for cor pulmonale were included. The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using the AMSTAR 2 tool. An evidence map was constructed to visualize key characteristics such as study population, sample size, and intervention modalities.
resultsA total of 39 studies were included, comprising systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and network meta-analyses on TCM interventions for PHD. The most common interventions were TCM injections, followed by decoctions and proprietary Chinese medicines. Treatment strategies primarily involved blood activation, tonification, blood stasis resolution, and meridian dredging (Tongluo). The AMSTAR 2 assessments identified several methodological weaknesses, including lack of protocol registration, absence of a list of excluded studies, and insufficient analysis of heterogeneity and risk of bias. According to the evidence map, 36 studies reported beneficial effects and 3 indicated likely benefit, suggesting a potentially positive role of TCM in managing PHD.
conclusionWhile most studies suggest that TCM interventions may be beneficial for PHD, the overall methodological quality of the evidence is very low. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted with caution. TCM shows promise as a therapeutic option for PHD; however, high-quality systematic reviews are needed to validate these preliminary results.
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.