Objective In the direction of evaluating the current status of outcome indicators and control group selection in randomized controlled studies of Chinese herbal compounding (such as Sini plus Renshen Decoction, Jianpifuzhengfang, Bufei Jianzhong Decoction, etc) for cancer-caused fatigue and to provide a reference for clinical studies of Chinese herbal compounding for cancer-caused fatigue. Methods Randomized controlled studies of Chinese herbal medicine for cancer-caused fatigue in the midst of 2012 and 2022 were searched in CNKI, PubMed, and EMBASE databases on the China Knowledge Network, and the literature was screened using NoteExpress. Two researchers independently conducted the literature review, and then the studies that met the criteria were grouped and analyzed adopting qualitative analysis of outcome indicators and control groups. Results A total of 70 randomized controlled studies that met the requirements were included, and after doing statistical analysis, it can draw to the conclusion that the risk of bias in the included studies was high; at the same time, the TCM evidence score scale, objective indicators, and safety indicators were underutilized; additionally, there were no uniform standards for the fatigue scale, and the selection of control groups lacked balance and consistency. Conclusion The outcome indicators of TCM compound treatment of cancer-caused fatigue should be on the basis of the principle of “diagnosis and treatment” in TCM, the proportion of objective indicators should be exaggerated, as well as the interventions in the control group should be unified.

BACKGROUND Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GA) is a commonly used first-line treatment regimen for metastatic pancreatic cancer, and many studies will add a novel targeted agent to this regimen for improving patient survival rate. However, the clinical effectiveness of GA is the most controversial issue. AIM To compare the efficacy and safety of GA regimen with a targeted agent and GA regimen. METHODS Up to 1 December 2021, the eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) relating to GA and GA with a targeted agent were searched on PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for eligible data. We screened out appropriate studies for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and toxicity, which had been pooled and finally analyzed by using Stata version 15.1. In addition, we use Reference Citation Analysis ( ) to collect the latest related literature to improve the latest cutting-edge research results. RESULTS Seven RCTs involving 1544 patients (848 men and 696 women) were included. There were no significant differences between GA with a targeted agent and GA in PFS [hazard ratio (HR): 1.18 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91-1.53], OS (HR: 1.12 95%CI: 0.99-1.27), and ORR (HR: 0.96 95%CI: 0.71-1.29). There was no notable difference in the two groups in grade 3/4 toxicity (fatigue, anemia, vomiting and neutropenia), whereas the incidence of grade 3/4 diarrhea considerably increased in GA with a targeted drug. CONCLUSION Adding a novel targeted agent to the GA regimen did not improve survival rate of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.