ReviewJournal of pain research2026
Anti-Dysmenorrhea Effects and Safety of Guizhi Fuling Capsules for Primary Dysmenorrhea: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Journal of pain research, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Primary dysmenorrhoea is common and disabling, while available treatments may be limited by incomplete response or adverse effects. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Guizhi Fuling Capsules (GZFL) for primary dysmenorrhoea. Methods: We searched eight English- and Chinese-language databases from inception to 1 December 2025 for randomized controlled trials comparing GZFL, alone or as add-on therapy, with placebo or conventional medicines. Meta-analyses used risk ratios (RRs), odds ratios (ORs), or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane tool and GRADE. Results: The searches identified 294 records, of which 14 trials involving 1280 participants met the eligibility criteria. All trials were conducted in China and were short-term, generally covering three menstrual cycles. GZFL-based regimens were associated with higher trial-defined pain-relief rates (11 trials, 1014 participants; RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.23-2.14; I Conclusion: Short-term randomized evidence suggests that GZFL-based regimens may improve categorical pain response and total effective rate and may be well tolerated, whereas the pooled VAS result was inconclusive. Confidence is limited by heterogeneity, incomplete reporting, short follow-up, and exclusively Chinese settings; longer, rigorously designed trials with standardized outcomes are needed. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, CRD420251271957.
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.