SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine external therapy on cancer-related fatigue: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of this network meta-analysis was to compare and evaluate the effectiveness of several traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) external therapies in reducing cancer-related fatigue(CRF). Methods: A search of eight databases was conducted to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on different external therapies of traditional Chinese medicine for alleviating CRF. The Cochrane ROB 2.0 tool was used to assess the included studies' bias risk. Network meta-analysis and comparative effect ranking were conducted using STATA MP 17.0. The primary outcome was the CRF score. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were used to calculate the effect size. The Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) tool was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. Results: The systematic review included eighty-seven RCTs covering 13 different external therapies. Among the treatments studied, acupuncture, acupressure, traditional Chinese exercises, transcutaneous acupoint electrical stimulation, moxibustion, Chinese medicine foot bath, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM)emotional care, acupoint injection, acupoint application, warming needle were demonstrated to be effective in alleviating CRF in comparison to usual care. The surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that warming needle was most effective in relieving CRF, followed by Chinese medicine foot bath, TCM emotional care, acupoint injections, moxibustion, etc. Conclusions: This review indicated that warming needle might be the most effective traditional Chinese medicine external therapy for treating CRF. But, the low certainty of evidence (assessed via CINeMA) must be emphasized in this low confidence means the results should be interpreted with great caution. Further validation is required through additional clinical trials. These findings provide significant support for future research and clinical trials. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023479194.
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.