SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Efficacy of Yupingfeng powder in the treatment of bronchial asthma in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Yupingfeng Powder (YPF), a classical Chinese herbal formula composed of Astragalus membranaceus, Atractylodes macrocephala, and Saposhnikovia divaricata, has demonstrated potential efficacy in the treatment of adult bronchial asthma when combined with conventional biomedical therapy (CBT), as indicated by multiple recent clinical studies. However, existing research is limited by small sample sizes, inconsistent methodological quality, and non-uniform syndrome differentiation, resulting in insufficient evidence strength. Moreover, traditional meta-analysis methods struggle to address study heterogeneity, and its definitive efficacy remains inadequately validated. Objective: To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of YPF combined with CBT in the treatment of adult bronchial asthma, and to clarify the heterogeneity sources. Methods: Strictly adhering to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, the study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD420251172600). A systematic search was conducted in seven databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China, etc., up to 20 October 2025), and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing YPF+CBT with CBT alone in adults with bronchial asthma were included. The Cochrane ROB 2.0 tool was used to assess the risk of bias, and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 and Stata 18 software. Subgroup analysis and Meta regression were employed to explore the sources of heterogeneity. Results: A total of 20 RCTs were ultimately included, involving 1,896 participants (950 in the intervention group and 946 in the control group). The meta-analysis revealed that the YPF+CBT group demonstrated significantly higher clinical overall response rate compared to the CBT group [risk ratio (RR) = 1.20, 95% CI (1.16, 1.25), P < 0.001, I Conclusion: YPF combined with CBT can significantly improve clinical efficacy, pulmonary function, and symptom control in adult bronchial asthma patients. However, due to limitations such as moderate methodological quality of the included studies, geographical constraints, and insufficient adverse event data, the conclusions require further validation through high-quality RCTs with large sample sizes, double-blind design, and placebo control. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=1172600, identifier CRD420251172600.
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.