SynthesisJournal of evidence-based integrative medicine
Impact of Syndrome Differentiation on Treatment Effects and side Effects of Chinese Herbal Medicine in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Meta-Epidemiological Study.
Synthesis in Journal of evidence-based integrative medicine. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveIn Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), syndrome differentiation is considered to be an essential diagnostic process for tailoring Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) treatments to individual patients. We conducted a meta-epidemiological study to evaluate the potential impact of syndrome differentiation on improving effect estimates in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Study Design and SettingSeven databases were searched to identify systematic reviews (SRs) published between 2021 and 2022 that pooled RCTs evaluating CHM treatment effects or side effects. Meta-epidemiological analyses were conducted using a two-step approach. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the disease category, outcome nature, and funding.ResultsWe included 137 SRs comprising 2,064 RCTs. The results demonstrated small and statistically nonsignificant differences in both treatment effects (ROR: 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.86 to 1.00,
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.