Cochrane · systematic review · CD004520
Chinese herbal medicine for oesophageal cancer
Chen, X, Deng, L, Jiang, X, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2016 · Cochrane Library
GutAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
19
current version
GRADE rated
16
No studies
3
Included studies
NR
No studies 3 · 15.8%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 4 · 21.1%Low 10 · 52.6%Moderate 2 · 10.5%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Active cancer therapy combined with TCM compared to active cancer therapy for oesophageal cancer
Population: patients with oesophageal cancer
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All‐cause mortality ‐ not reported Active cancer therapy combined with TCM vs active cancer therapy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Median survival times ‐ not reported Active cancer therapy combined with TCM vs active cancer therapy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Time to progression ‐ not reported Active cancer therapy combined with TCM vs active cancer therapy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life ‐ number experiencing improvement Active cancer therapy combined with TCM vs active cancer therapy | RR 2.2 [1.42, 3.39] | 5 studies · 233 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Quality of life ‐ number experiencing deterioration Active cancer therapy combined with TCM vs active cancer therapy | RR 0.41 [0.27, 0.62] | 6 studies · 287 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Quality of life ‐ Karnofsky performance status Karnofsky status judged by clinicians. Scale: 0 to 100 Active cancer therapy combined with TCM vs active cancer therapy | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 60 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Short‐term therapeutic effects ‐ improvement (complete response + partial response) Active cancer therapy combined with TCM vs active cancer therapy | RR 1.17 [1.02, 1.35] | 8 studies · 450 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Short‐term therapeutic effects ‐ progressive disease Active cancer therapy combined with TCM vs active cancer therapy | RR 0.73 [0.52, 1.01] | 8 studies · 450 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
TCM symptoms ‐ total effectiveness Active cancer therapy combined with TCM vs active cancer therapy | RR 1.84 [1.2, 2.81] | 2 studies · 88 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
TCM symptoms ‐ ineffectiveness Active cancer therapy combined with TCM vs active cancer therapy | RR 0.22 [0.05, 0.93] | 2 studies · 88 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Active cancer therapy combined with TCM compared to active cancer therapy for oesophageal cancer
Population: oesophageal cancer
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Adverse events ‐ mucositis Diagnosed by clinicians Active cancer therapy combined with TCM vs active cancer therapy | RR 0.92 [0.8, 1.06] | 1 study · 50 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Adverse events ‐ radiation oesophagitis Active cancer therapy combined with TCM vs active cancer therapy | RR 0.66 [0.47, 0.94] | 2 studies · 160 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events ‐ arrest of bone marrow Active cancer therapy combined with TCM vs active cancer therapy | RR 0.28 [0.14, 0.58] | 1 study · 90 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Adverse events ‐ gastrointestinal reactions Diagnosed by clinicians Active cancer therapy combined with TCM vs active cancer therapy | RR 0.54 [0.36, 0.81] | 4 studies · 268 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events ‐ renal and hepatic impairment ‐ Fuzheng Guben granules Active cancer therapy combined with TCM vs active cancer therapy | RR 0.33 [0.13, 0.84] | 1 study · 90 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Adverse events ‐ renal and hepatic impairment‐ Xiaoaiping Diagnosed by clinicians Active cancer therapy combined with TCM vs active cancer therapy | RR 0.9 [0.12, 6.48] | 1 study · 60 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Adverse events ‐ white blood cell descent Diagnosed by clinicians Active cancer therapy combined with TCM vs active cancer therapy | RR 0.6 [0.44, 0.83] | 4 studies · 224 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events ‐ neurotoxicity Diagnosed by clinicians Active cancer therapy combined with TCM vs active cancer therapy | RR 0.73 [0.34, 1.55] | 1 study · 60 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Adverse events ‐ cardiac toxicity Diagnosed by clinicians Active cancer therapy combined with TCM vs active cancer therapy | RR 0.8 [0.24, 2.69] | 1 study · 60 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |