SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Current clinical applications and clinical evidence of Bojungikki-tang, a traditional East Asian multi-botanical preparation: a scoping review.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bojungikki-tang (Buzhongyiqi decoction, Hochuekkito, BIT) has been used in East Asian medicine for conditions with fatigue, reduced appetite, and functional decline. In recent years, research on this preparation has expanded across diverse disease areas, yet its contemporary evidence landscape has not been systematically mapped. This scoping review aimed to characterize the scope, methodological features, outcome domains, botanical drug reporting, and safety reporting of studies published since 2015. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and OASIS was conducted to identify studies evaluating BIT. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials non-randomized trials, observational studies, and case-based reports published from 2015 onward. Data were charted on study design, disease system, intervention characteristics, botanical composition, formulation reporting, outcome domains, and adverse-event reporting, and synthesized descriptively. Results: Forty-seven studies involving 2,568 participants were included. RCTs accounted for 48.9%, while case-based studies comprised 27.7%. Oncology represented the largest disease cluster (27.7%), followed by urogenital (17.0%), neurologic (14.9%), and respiratory conditions (12.8%). BIT was used as monotherapy in 55.3% of studies and as an adjunct in 44.7%. Granule and decoction forms accounted for 89.4% of interventions. Outcomes assessed fatigue, appetite, quality of life, functional recovery, inflammatory and nutritional biomarkers, and treatment tolerance. Heterogeneity in formulation, comparators, outcomes, and safety reporting limited comparability. Conclusion: Recent studies suggest that BIT is investigated as a recovery-oriented intervention in conditions with immune-inflammatory stress and functional vulnerability. Greater standardization in botanical drug nomenclature, formulation definition, outcome frameworks, and harms reporting is needed for evidence-based botanical drug research.
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.