Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34930390›Full record

ReviewChinese medicine2021

Chinese herbal medicine for functional dyspepsia: a network meta-analysis of prokinetic-controlled randomised trials.

Leonard Ho, Claire C W Zhong, Charlene H L Wong, Justin C Y Wu, Karina K H Chan, Irene X Y Wu, Ting Hung Leung, Vincent C H Chung

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Chinese medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Leonard HoSchool of Chinese Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong.
Claire C W ZhongThe Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong.
Charlene H L WongThe Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong.
Justin C Y WuDepartment of Medicine and Therapeutics, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong.
Karina K H ChanUnited Christian Nethersole Community Health Service, The Chinese University of Hong Kong Chinese Medicine Clinic Cum Training and Research Centre (Tai Po District), Tai Po, Hong Kong.
Irene X Y WuXiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, Changsha, China. irenexywu@csu.edu.cn.
Ting Hung LeungSchool of Chinese Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong.
Vincent C H ChungSchool of Chinese Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong.
Chinese University of Hong Kong · CNCentral South University · CNHong Kong Jockey Club · CNUnited Christian Hospital · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81973709Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province 2019JJ40348
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProkinetic is the first-line conventional treatment for functional dyspepsia (FD) in Asia despite potential adverse events. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) may be an effective and safe substitution. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different CHM formulae for FD against prokinetics.

methodsSeven international and Chinese databases were searched from their inception to July 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on CHM versus prokinetics. Data from each RCT were first pooled using random-effect pairwise meta-analyses and illustrated as risk difference (RD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Random-effect NMAs were then performed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of CHM formulae and displayed as RD with 95% CI or SMD with 95% credible interval (CrI). The GRADE partially contextualised framework was applied for NMA result interpretation.

resultsTwenty-six unique CHM formulae were identified from twenty-eight RCTs of mediocre quality. Pairwise meta-analyses indicated that CHM was superior to prokinetics in alleviating global symptoms at 4-week follow-up (pooled RD: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.10-0.19), even after trim and fill adjustment for publication bias. NMAs demonstrated that Modified Zhi Zhu Decoction may have a moderate beneficial effect on alleviating global symptoms at 4-week follow-up (RD: 0.28; 95% CI: - 0.03 to 0.75). Xiao Pi Kuan Wei Decoction may have a large beneficial effect on alleviating postprandial fullness (SMD: - 2.14; 95% CI: - 2.76 to 0.70), early satiety (SMD: - 3.90; 95% CI: - 0.68 to - 0.42), and epigastric pain (SMD: - 1.23; 95% CI: - 1.66 to - 0.29). No serious adverse events were reported.

conclusionModified Zhi Zhu Decoction and Xiao Pi Kuan Wei Decoction may be considered as an alternative for patients unresponsive to prokinetics. Confirmatory head-to-head trials should be conducted to investigate their comparative effectiveness against prokinetics.

Indexed as

Chinese traditionalDomperidoneDyspepsiaMedicineNetwork meta-analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34930390
PMCPMC8691044
OpenAlexW4200331008

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.