Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28199409›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2017

Effect of Chinese patent medicine Si-Mo-Tang oral liquid for functional dyspepsia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Yunxia Hu, Yu Bai, Zhiyun Hua, Jie Yang, Huahui Yang, Wenjun Chen, Junwei Xu, Zhiqiang Zhao

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Analysis of composition of gut microbial community in a rat model of functional dyspepsia treated with Simo Tang.Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan · 2024
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yunxia HuThe First College of Clinical Medicine, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Yu BaiThe First College of Clinical Medicine, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Zhiyun HuaDepartment of Respiration, Zhenjiang Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Zhenjiang, Jiangsu, China.
Jie YangDepartment of Intensive Care Unit, Liyang Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Changzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Huahui YangJockey School of Public Health, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Wenjun ChenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Zhejiang Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Junwei XuThe First College of Clinical Medicine, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Zhiqiang ZhaoThe First College of Clinical Medicine, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine · CNChinese University of Hong Kong · CNHangzhou Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSi-Mo-Tang oral liquid (SMT) has been widely used to treat functional dyspepsia (FD), but the effectiveness is still controversial. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were performed to assess the efficacy and adverse effects of SMT for FD.

methodsInvestigators searched for articles with publication dates to June 21, 2016, from 9 English and Chinese electronic databases. Comparisons were SMT alone or SMT in combination with western medicine as experimental intervention, and western medicine or placebo as the control. We used the Cochrane collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias to evaluate methodologies. Data were synthesized with RevMan 5.3 software. (PROSPERO Registration #CRD42016042003).

resultsTwenty-seven RCTs were included in the review, involving 2,713 participants: 1,383 subjects were in the experimental group and 1,330 in the control group. SMT showed a significant improvement in clinical efficacy (RR 1.14; 95% CI 1.09, 1.20; P<0.00001), but the heterogeneity was also significant (P = 0.0002, I2 = 56%). Because of the different interventions in the 2 groups, we performed subgroup and sensitivity analyses to investigate potential sources of heterogeneity. The heterogeneity was smaller after subgroup analysis and the exclusion of a study by Zhu from 2009. The corresponding pooled RR has no obvious change (RR 1.17; 95% CI 1.13, 1.21; P<0.00001). Subgroup analysis by age and drugs administered in control interventions between SMT and western medicine also showed improvement in the efficacy rate. But a data synthesis that excluded high risk of bias in the blinding of participants and personnel showed no significant difference (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.97, 1.35; P = 0.12). Three studies measured gastric emptying. Two of these studies reported no significant difference between the experimental and control groups, while 1 study showed that SMT reduced the time of gastric emptying. The relapse rate and adverse effects had no difference between 2 groups.

conclusionsThis meta-analysis suggests that SMT is an effective and safe therapy option for patients with FD. However, because of the high clinical heterogeneity, poor quality, high risk of bias and small sample size of some included studies, further standardized large-scale and strictly designed studies are needed.

Indexed as

Administration, OralDatabases, FactualDrugs, Chinese HerbalDyspepsiaHumansMedicine, Chinese TraditionalRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRiskTreatment OutcomeDrugs, Chinese Herbal

Identifiers

PMID28199409
PMCPMC5310891
OpenAlexW2588974736

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.