SynthesisFrontiers in public health2025
Efficacy, safety, and costs of nine Chinese patent medicines for the treatment of angina pectoris in CHD.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study employed a multidimensional evaluation framework (of efficacy, safety, and costs) to comprehensively assess the value of Chinese patent medicines (CPMs) combined with Western medicine in treating coronary heart disease (CHD) angina pectoris with Qi deficiency and blood stasis pattern. Methods: Efficacy analysis was based on a network meta-analysis (NMA) of 24 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Safety was assessed using a standardized framework that graded adverse events via CTCAE v5.0 and synthesized risk profiles into a Composite Safety Score. A pragmatic Cost-Consequence Analysis (CCA) was employed to synthesize direct daily treatment costs with clinical efficacy rankings (SUCRA). Results: The network meta-analysis of 24 RCTs ( Conclusion: Specific CPMs, notably Dengzhan Shengmai Capsule (maximal efficacy), Shexiang Tongxin Dropping Pill (balanced value), and Yangxinshi Tablet (cost-minimization), demonstrate significant therapeutic and economic advantages as add-on therapies. Beyond these clinical findings, this study establishes a multidimensional framework aligned with international regulatory standards, serving as a model for the future pharmacoeconomic integration of TCM into global cardiovascular care.
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.