Evidence Hub

Efficacy and safety of Chinese classical prescriptions for dilated cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Shi-Yi Tao, Lintong Yu, Jun Li, Ji Wu, Xiao Xia, Yong-Hao Li, De-Shuang Yang, Wenjie Zhang

Systematic Reviews, 2025

1 citation

Abstract

Chinese classical prescriptions (CCPs) are commonly utilized in China as an adjuvant treatment for dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). Nevertheless, there was insufficient systematic evidence data to show the advantages of CCPs plus current conventional therapy (CT) against DCM. This network meta-analysis (NMA) sought to evaluate and prioritize the six different CCP types’ respective efficacies for DCM. A comprehensive search was conducted from the databases’ inception to November 30, 2024, to extract RCTs that addressed the use of CCPs in conjunction with CT for DCM. The databases included PubMed, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science Periodical Database (CSPD), Chinese Citation Database (CCD), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), and ClinicalTrials.gov. The Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included RCTs. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probability values was employed to rank the relative efficacy. Bayesian network meta-analysis was applied to evaluate the efficacy of various CCPs. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024586365). Following the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 27 eligible RCTs involving 2019 patients were included. The evaluated outcomes included clinical effectiveness rate (CER), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD), left…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free