Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22592712›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

Chinese herbal medicine for endometriosis.

Andrew Flower, Jian Ping Liu, George Lewith, Paul Little, Qing Li

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
12.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues for endometriosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Clinical practice guidelines for endometriosis in Japan (The 3rd edition).The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · 2022
    Guideline
  5. Laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  6. Chinese herbal medicines for treating osteoporosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Water-ExtractedFrontiers in pharmacology · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2021
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrew FlowerComplementaryMedicine ResearchUnit, Dept PrimaryMedical Care, Southampton University, Ringmer, UK. flower.power@which.net.
Jian Ping Liu
George Lewith
Paul Little
Qing Li
Beijing University of Chinese Medicine · CNUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndometriosis is characterized by the presence of tissue that is morphologically and biologically similar to normal endometrium in locations outside the uterus. Surgical and hormonal treatment of endometriosis have unpleasant side effects and high rates of relapse. In China, treatment of endometriosis using Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) is routine and considerable research into the role of CHM in alleviating pain, promoting fertility, and preventing relapse has taken place.This review is an update of a previous review published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, issue No 3.

objectivesTo review the effectiveness and safety of CHM in alleviating endometriosis-related pain and infertility. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library) and the following English language electronic databases (from their inception to 31/10/2011): MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, and NLH.We also searched Chinese language electronic databases: Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Sci & Tech Journals (VIP), Traditional Chinese Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System (TCMLARS), and Chinese Medical Current Contents (CMCC). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving CHM versus placebo, biomedical treatment, another CHM intervention; or CHM plus biomedical treatment versus biomedical treatment were selected. Only trials with confirmed randomisation procedures and laparoscopic diagnosis of endometriosis were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Risk of bias assessment, and data extraction and analysis were performed independently by three review authors. Data were combined for meta-analysis using relative risk (RR) for dichotomous data. A fixed-effect statistical model was used, where appropriate. Data not suitable for meta-analysis were presented as descriptive data. MAIN

resultsTwo Chinese RCTs involving 158 women were included in this review. Both these trials described adequate methodology. Neither trial compared CHM with placebo treatment.There was no evidence of a significant difference in rates of symptomatic relief between CHM and gestrinone administered subsequent to laparoscopic surgery (95.65% versus 93.87%; risk ratio (RR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.12, one RCT). The intention-to-treat analysis also showed no significant difference between the groups (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.18). There was no significant difference between the CHM and gestrinone groups with regard to the total pregnancy rate (69.6% versus 59.1%; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.59, one RCT).CHM administered orally and then in conjunction with a herbal enema resulted in a greater proportion of women obtaining symptomatic relief than with danazol (RR 5.06, 95% CI 1.28 to 20.05; RR 5.63, 95% CI 1.47 to 21.54, respectively). Overall, 100% of women in all the groups showed some improvement in their symptoms.Oral plus enema administration of CHM showed a greater reduction in average dysmenorrhoea pain scores than did danazol (mean difference (MD) -2.90, 95% CI -4.55 to -1.25; P < 0.01). Combined oral and enema administration of CHM also showed a greater improvement measured as the disappearance or shrinkage of adnexal masses than with danazol (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.78). For lumbosacral pain, rectal discomfort, or vaginal nodules tenderness, there was no significant difference between CHM and danazol. AUTHORS'

conclusionsPost-surgical administration of CHM may have comparable benefits to gestrinone but with fewer side effects. Oral CHM may have a better overall treatment effect than danazol; it may be more effective in relieving dysmenorrhoea and shrinking adnexal masses when used in conjunction with a CHM enema. However, more rigorous research is required to accurately assess the potential role of CHM in treating endometriosis.

Indexed as

DanazolDrugs, Chinese HerbalDysmenorrheaEndometriosisEnemaEstrogen AntagonistsFemaleGestrinoneHumansPelvic PainProgestinsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicDanazolDrugs, Chinese HerbalEstrogen AntagonistsGestrinoneProgestins

Identifiers

PMID22592712
PMCPMC12817023
OpenAlexW1923369769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.