SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Clinical analysis of drug treatment trends for coronary heart disease in China.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of mortality in China, yet the alignment between pharmaceutical research investment and clinical therapeutic priorities remains uncharacterized. Methods: We conducted a dual-stream analysis. Stream A (Bibliometric): systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science yielded 12,032 records; after deduplication and screening, 3,339 publications met inclusion criteria. Stream B (Clinical Trials): searches of CDCTP and ChiCTR identified 1,433 interventional drug trials after deduplication and quality control. Drugs were standardized to the WHO ATC classification; TCM ingredients to TCMID 2.0. Results: CHD research output expanded exponentially: Publications increased from 41 (2006) to 353 (2020; 760% increase), with 265 in 2025 (546% increase from baseline). Strikingly, 76.4% of trials were bioequivalence studies, with chemical pharmaceuticals dominating (78.6%) over traditional Chinese medicine (21.4%); calcium channel blockers comprised the largest drug category (45.9%. Notably, Critical gaps emerged: genomic research concentrated on inflammatory biomarkers (CRP, IL6, TNF; 25.8% of gene associations) while lipid metabolism targets were underrepresented (12.4%) despite statin therapeutic dominance; publication venue prestige demonstrated inverse volume-impact correlation (19.7% Q1 vs. 33.6% Q3 journals). Thus, quantitative expansion (compound annual growth rate (CAGR) 10.4%) coexisted with qualitative ceiling effects and target-drug mismatches between research investment and clinical guideline priorities. Conclusion: China's CHD research landscape is policy-driven rather than clinically aligned: generic bioequivalence validation dominates (76.4%) while innovative therapeutic development and high-impact dissemination lag. Strategic rebalancing toward lipid metabolism genomic discovery, Phase II-III novel drug trials, and Q1 journal publication is imperative to bridge the research-clinical practice gap and align with global cardiovascular science standards.
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.