SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Traditional herbal medicine for opioid-induced constipation in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical Efficacy of Magnesium in Perioperative Pain Management: A Narrative Review.Current pain and headache reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of traditional herbal medicine (THM) in improving opioid-induced constipation (OIC) in patients with cancer. Methods: To identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating orally administered THM for OIC in patients with cancer, a comprehensive search of seven databases was conducted from inception to 29 August 2024. The primary outcome was improvement in OIC, which was assessed using the total effective rate (TER). Secondary outcomes included stool form, difficulty of defecation, defecation time, and the Karnofsky performance scale (KPS). The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method. Results: In total, 21 RCTs involving 2,108 patients were included. Compared to conventional medicine, THM significantly improved OIC as measured by TER [risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) 1.14-1.25], with high certainty. THM showed a significant improvement in stool form [mean difference (MD) -0.16, 95% CIs -0.43-0.10; very low certainty], difficulty of defecation [MD -0.31, 95% CIs -0.49 to -0.13; low certainty], defecation time [MD -0.28, 95% CIs -0.45 to -0.10; moderate certainty], and KPS measured by mean changes in scores [MD 6.76, 95% CIs 4.32-9.20; low certainty]. Adverse events were mainly gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain, but such events were not serious. Conclusion: The findings of this systematic review indicate that THM may be considered a safe and potentially alternative option for improving OIC in patients with cancer. However, more robust and high-quality RCTs are required to strengthen this evidence. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, Identifier: CRD42024557773.
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.