SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese classic prescriptions combined with metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
Background: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a metabolic disorder characterized by chronic hyperglycemia. While biomedicine (e.g., metformin) serves as the first-line treatment, combination therapies involving botanical drugs are increasingly utilized. However, the comparative efficacy of different botanical formulations remains to be systematically evaluated. Aim: This study aims to analyze randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of eight specific classical botanical drug formulas combined with metformin (Met) for T2DM, providing evidence to support integrated clinical management. Methods: A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed on RCTs sourced from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and Chinese databases. The taxonomic validation of all botanical drugs was conducted using MPNS. Outcomes including HbA1c, FPG, and lipid profiles were assessed using the SUCRA and GRADE methodology. Results: Forty RCTs involving 3,088 patients were included. In terms of glycemic control, the combination of Conclusion: The current NMA results suggest that HLJDD combined with Met is a consistently effective option for reducing both FPG and HbA1c. For HbA1c improvement, while DCHD combined with Met showed initial potential, sensitivity analysis restricted to trials ≥8 weeks identified HLJDD and ZBDHD as the most physiologically robust interventions. However, given the "Very Low" certainty of evidence for many comparisons, these rankings remain exploratory.
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.