ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
A retrospective clinical analysis of inappropriate Xiangdan Injection use: clinical risk profiling and computational hypothesis generation.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Xiangdan Injection, a traditional Chinese medicine preparation, is extensively utilized in clinical settings. Nevertheless, frequent instances of inappropriate administration pose significant safety concerns. The clinical findings were supplemented with Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 100 patients who received Xiangdan Injection at Ma'anshan Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine. A focused review was undertaken to assess the rationale for using Xiangdan Injection in these 100 patients. Furthermore, as an exploratory supplement, we employed network pharmacology and molecular docking methods, aiming to generate hypotheses regarding the potential basis of their biological activities. Results: An analysis of 100 clinical cases identified four primary patterns of irrational drug use: unclear indications (67.8%), inappropriate solvent selection (16.1%), repeated medication (11.3%), and prolonged treatment duration (4.8%). Exploratory network pharmacology suggested that key metabolites (e.g., luteolin) may target proteins such as AKT1 and PTGS2, and potentially associate with pathways like PI3K/AKT. Molecular docking indicated a potential binding affinity between luteolin and PTGS2, offering a preliminary hypothesis for its pharmacological profile. Furthermore, these metabolites were linked to liver-related processes, suggesting a need for vigilance regarding hepatotoxicity with prolonged use. Conclusion: This study identified the main risk patterns of the irrational clinical use of Xiangdan Injection. The computational part of this study put forward hypotheses that need to be verified by future experiments. We also proposed targeted suggestions for improving the safety of clinical medication use.
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.