ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2017
Effectiveness of
Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Non-Chinese herbal medicines for functional dyspepsia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
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
CONTEXT AND
aimsWe aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of hydroalcoholic extract of PATIENTS AND
methodsIn this randomized, double-blind clinical trial, patients with symptomatic dyspepsia who had an endoscopic evaluation for dyspepsia were included and randomized into two groups. One Group (A) received drug extract with a dose of 100 mg twice a day for 10 days. Group B, as a control group, received placebo. Immediately and 2 months after intervention, the patients were followed up, and the characteristics of their dyspepsia (severity and frequency), endoscopic and pathologic findings were reevaluated and compared.
resultsIn this trial, 13 and ten patients participated in the study in Groups A and B, respectively. Two months after intervention, ten (76.9%) and six (60%) participants referred for follow-up and endoscopic evaluation. There were no significant changes in clinical presentations after intervention (
conclusionsThe findings of this trial indicated that hydroalcoholic extract of
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.