Should eighteen incompatibilities be used? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the analgesic effect of pinellia and aconitum used externally for cancer pain
European Journal of Integrative Medicine, ISSN: 1876-3820, Vol: 71, Page: 102407
2024
- 5Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures5
- Readers5
Review Description
Many clinical formulas containing the couplet Chinese medicines pinellia and aconitum (CMPA) have been recognized and demonstrated analgesic efficacy. However, CMPA belongs to the "eighteen incompatibilities" of traditional Chinese medicine theory, which is considered prohibited and dangerous by some medical practitioners. Whether CMPA can truly be used safely and without concern in the clinic urgently requires a more cohesive evaluation of the evidence. This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of CMPA for external use in the treatment of cancer pain. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and Sinomed databases to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CMPA with conventional medicines for the treatment of cancer pain from their inception to December 31, 2023. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software. The modified Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence profile was constructed to illustrate the certainty of evidence. A total of 1083 patients were enrolled in 14 RCTs. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the numerical rating scale (NRS) pain score [MD=-0.84, 95 % CI (-1.21, -0.47), P < 0.00001, moderate certainty], duration of continuous analgesia [MD=1.45 h, 95 % CI (1.13, 1.77), P < 0.00001, low certainty], and Karnofsky performance status (KPS) quality of life score [MD=7.25, 95 % CI (5.01, 9.48), P < 0.00001, low certainty] of patients after external administration of CMPA-containing prescriptions in combination with conventional medicine therapy were better than those with the conventional medicine therapy. The incidence of total adverse reactions [RR=0.69, 95 % CI (0.58, 0.83), P < 0.0001, moderate certainty] and constipation [RR=0.43, 95 % CI (0.19, 0.97), P = 0.04, moderate certainty] of patients after external administration of CMPA-containing prescriptions in combination with conventional medicine therapy were lower than those with the conventional medicine therapy. No statistically significant differences were found regarding the effectiveness or safety of CMPA-containing prescriptions compared to conventional medicine therapy (low or very low certainty evidence). The external use of CMPA-containing prescriptions, when combined with conventional medicine therapy, is safer and more effective for cancer pain than conventional medicine therapy. However, higher-level evidence is still warranted. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023400792.
Bibliographic Details
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know