Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26029248›Full record

ArticleChinese medicine2015

Qing-Yi decoction in participants with severe acute pancreatitis: a randomized controlled trial.

Weiwei Chen, Xiaonan Yang, Lei Huang, Ping Xue, Meihua Wan, Jia Guo, Lin Zhu, Tao Jin, Zongwen Huang, Guangyuan Chen and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chinese medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Weiwei ChenDepartment of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041 Sichuan Province China.
Xiaonan YangDepartment of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041 Sichuan Province China.
Lei HuangDepartment of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041 Sichuan Province China.
Ping XueDepartment of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041 Sichuan Province China.
Meihua WanDepartment of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041 Sichuan Province China.
Jia GuoDepartment of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041 Sichuan Province China.
Lin ZhuDepartment of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041 Sichuan Province China.
Tao JinDepartment of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041 Sichuan Province China.
Zongwen HuangDepartment of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041 Sichuan Province China.
Guangyuan ChenDepartment of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041 Sichuan Province China.
Wenfu TangDepartment of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041 Sichuan Province China.
Qing XiaDepartment of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041 Sichuan Province China.
Sichuan University · CNWest China Hospital of Sichuan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQing-Yi Decoction (QYD) has been used for severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) patients in China for many years. There were two kinds of QYD: Num 1. QYD (QYD1) which is used in the acute response stage of SAP and Num 2. QYD (QYD2) which is used in the second stage of SAP. This study aims to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of QYD in participants with SAP.

methodsIn this prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, participants aged 18-70 years within the first 7 days after acute onset of typical abdominal pain (the definition of SAP was according to the 2007 Guidelines for Management of Severe Acute Pancreatitis in China) were selected. The disease severity was determined by the Ranson, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, and Balthazar CT scores. The test group received Western medicine and Chinese medicine (Num.1 QYD and Num.2 QYD), while the control group received Western medicine and placebo. The primary end-points were length of hospital stay, total hospitalization expenses, operation rate, and mortality. The secondary end-points were organ complications (i.e., heart failure, respiratory failure, acute renal failure, and hepatic failure), duration of paralytic ileus, infection, intensive care unit stay, and respirator use.

resultsFrom March 2008 to July 2010, a total of 300 participants with severe acute pancreatitis were assessed for eligibility in West China Hospital, and 100 were eligible for randomized allocation. Eighty-five participants (46 in the test group; 39 in the control group) were included in the statistical analyses. The two groups were similar in their baseline clinical characteristics (age, sex, and etiology) and disease severity. After the interventions, there were no differences between the two groups for length of hospital stay (P = 0.323), total hospitalization expenses (P = 0.252), operation rate (P = 0.231), mortality (P = 0.462), organ complications (P > 0.05), intensive care unit stay (P = 0.209), and respirator use (P > 0.05). However, the duration [median (interquartile range)] of paralytic ileus, i.e., 4 (2-6) days vs. 6 (4-8) days (P = 0.014) and rate of infection, i.e., (13.0 % vs. 35.9 %) (P = 0.013) differed significantly.

conclusionsQYD could restore gastrointestinal motility to normal and reduce the infection rates in the SAP patients who completed a full course of QYD treatment according to per protocol analysis.

Identifiers

PMID26029248
PMCPMC4449590
OpenAlexW2129036182

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.