Loading
Life sciences · Review
Evidence-based Chinese Medicine and Technology Assessment · September 28, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Review.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Introduction To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of American ginseng (AG, Panax quinquefolius L.)-based cancer therapies and assess the certainty of the available evidence. Methods We searched the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, Chinese Scientific Journals Database, SinoMed, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases from inception until December 8, 2025, and updated the search through June 30, 2026, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating AG-based therapies for malignant tumors. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, and assessed evidence certainty using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)pro guideline development tool. Disagreements were resolved by consultation with a third reviewer. Meta-analyses, data visualization, and sensitivity analyses were performed using R software. Results The meta-analysis included 15 RCTs involving 1415 participants (intervention group: 857 participants; control group: 558 participants). Pooled analyses of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) formulations containing AG suggested a higher objective response rate (ORR) when combined with conventional medical treatment (CMT) (risk ratio [RR] = 1.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04, 1.85) and a higher disease control rate (DCR) when administered alone or in combination with CMT (RR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.33). A higher proportion of patients receiving AG-containing TCM formulations met the study-defined criterion for improved Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) (RR = 2.62, 95% CI: 1.63, 4.21). Pooled estimates also favored AG-containing TCM formulations plus CMT for chemotherapy-related leukopenia, gastrointestinal reactions, hepatic dysfunction, and alopecia, although several of these estimates were based on a small number of studies. The certainty of evidence across outcomes was low or very low. Conclusion Although several pooled estimates favored AG-containing TCM formulations, the certainty of the available evidence was low to very low certainty. Therefore, our findings should be considered exploratory rather than confirmatory. Registration This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, CRD420261419243).