| Title |
Effects of Shengmai injection add-on therapy to chemotherapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-018-4167-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Baoqi Duan, Jinsong Xie, Qinglin Rui, Wenxi Zhang, Zhaoqing Xi |
| Abstract |
Shengmai injection (SMI) has shown promising outcomes in the management of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the add-on effects of SMI to chemotherapy in NSCLC patients. A comprehensive literature search was performed in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang up to December 2017. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating SMI in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in NSCLC patients were eligible. The outcome measures were quality of life, chemotherapy-induced grade 3/4 myelosuppression or gastrointestinal reactions, and objective tumor response (equals complete response plus partial response). Pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to evaluate dichotomous and continuous outcome, respectively. A total of 15 RCTs were included and analyzed. Meta-analysis showed that SMI combined with chemotherapy was associated with a significant improvement in Karnofsky Performance Status (RR 2.36; 95% CI 1.50-3.96) compared with the chemotherapy alone. Moreover, adjunctive treatment with SMI significantly reduced grade 3/4 myelosuppression (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.46-0.81) and gastrointestinal reactions (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.46-0.90). However, there was no significant difference in objective tumor response (RR 1.17; 95% CI 0.99-1.37) between two groups. SMI add-on therapy appeared to be more effective in improving quality of life and reducing chemotherapy-induced adverse effects. However, more well-designed RCTs are warranted to confirm the findings of this meta-analysis because of the suboptimal methodological quality of the included trials. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 8 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 16% |
| Psychology | 1 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 June 2018.
All research outputs
#20,520,426
of 23,088,369 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#4,078
of 4,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#291,428
of 330,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#90
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,088,369 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,651 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,030 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.