MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313251249 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000032283

Efficacy and safety of Yiqi Huoxue Yangxin decoction combined with western medicine in patients with chronic coronary heart disease: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· article· en· W4313251249 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bingxin Xie, Bao Wu, Mingzhang Zhao, Yili Liu, Xu Guolei, Qiao Li

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraditional Chinese Medicine Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisCochrane LibrarySystematic reviewRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEProtocol (science)Adverse effectInternal medicinePhysical therapyAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is no evidence-based data to confirm the efficacy of Yiqi Huoxue Yangxin Decoction combined with Western medicine in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). Therefore, in order to provide new medical evidence for clinical treatment, we used this protocol to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness and safety of Yiqi Huoxue Yangxin Decoction combined with Western medicine in patients with CHD. METHODS: The systematic review protocol is registered in PROSPERO under registration number CRD42022372800. The systematic literature review will follow PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). The following search terms will be used in PUBMED, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wan Fang, and VIP on December 1, 2022. Two independent authors extract the following descriptive raw information from selected studies: study characteristics such as authors, year of publication, study design; patient demographic information such as number of patients, mean age, body mass index, and sex ratio. The primary outcome of interest is symptom scores. Secondary outcomes include ECG effective rate, improvement of blood lipid index, and adverse events. The Cochrane Bias Risk Tool is used independently by 2 reviewers to assess the risk of bias in included randomized controlled trials. The quality of retrospective studies will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our review will be reported strictly following the PRISMA criteria and the review will add to the existing literature by showing compelling evidence and improved guidance in clinic settings.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicTraditional Chinese Medicine AnalysisFrench-language works237,207