SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Twelve Chinese patent medicines combined with conventional medicine for the treatment of functional dyspepsia: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study systematically evaluates the clinical efficacy and safety of 12 Chinese Patent Medicines (CPMs) combined with conventional Western medicine (CWM) in treating Functional Dyspepsia (FD), aiming to provide robust evidence for optimizing treatment strategies. Methods: We systematically searched eight Chinese and international databases up to September 2025, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, VIP Information, China Biology Medicine Disc, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, and evidence certainty was appraised with CINeMA. Network meta-analysis was performed within a frequentist framework using random-effects models, and treatments were ranked by the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Results: A total of 76 RCTs involving 7,575 participants were included. All CPM + CWM regimens were more effective than CWM alone. The most significant benefit for total effective rate was observed with Jinghua Weikang Capsules (JWC) + CWM (RR = 1.46, 95% CI 1.28-1.67; SUCRA = 98.4%), Wuling Capsules (WLC) + CWM (RR = 1.29, 95% CI 1.18-1.42; SUCRA = 80.9%), and Qizhi Weitong Granules (QWG) + CWM (RR = 1.26, 95% CI 1.14-1.38; SUCRA = 69.2%). For motilin, WLC + CWM, Zhizhu Kuanzhong Capsules (ZKC) + CWM, and Simo Tang Oral Liquid (STOL) + CWM showed significant improvements. For gastrin, Liuwei Nengxiao Capsules (LNC) + CWM, Dalitong Granules (DLTG) + CWM, and STOL + CWM ranked highest. No CPM + CWM regimen was associated with a significant increase in adverse events, except for a higher risk with WLC + CWM versus QWG + CWM (OR = 4.82, 95% CI 1.02-22.87). Sensitivity analyses and meta-regression supported the robustness of these findings, while CINeMA rated the certainty of evidence as low for most comparisons. Conclusion: CPM combined with CWM was more effective than CWM alone in improving symptom response and gastrointestinal hormone levels, without increasing adverse events. These findings support CPMs as promising adjuncts to standard therapy, though higher-quality RCTs are needed to confirm their role in personalized management of functional dyspepsia. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/ CRD42024562649.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.