ArticleAvicenna journal of phytomedicine
Effect of
Article in Avicenna journal of phytomedicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Non-Chinese herbal medicines for functional dyspepsia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Design characteristics of comparative effectiveness trials for the relief of symptomatic dyspepsia: A systematic review.Integrative medicine research · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed at investigating the effect of Iranian traditional remedy prepared from MATERIAL AND
methodsIn total, 150 FD patients were included in this randomized double-blind trial, based on the ROME III diagnostic criteria, and they were divided into three intervention groups namely, AT, Placebo and omeprazole. Then, severity and frequency of symptoms during this eight-week trial were measured. Obtained information was analyzed using Chi-square test and repeated measures test.
resultIn general, the severity and frequency of symptoms after the 4th week significantly decreased in the AT group as compared to the omeprazole and placebo groups, and continued to reduce by the end of the eighth week. General reduction of symptom severity and frequency in the omeprazole group was significantly different from the placebo group by the end of the 4th and 8th weeks. With respect to each individual symptom, AT markedly improved symptoms, such as burning, pain, early satiation, fullness, bloating, belching and nausea, as compared to placebo-treated group. Moreover, AT significantly improved symptoms, like vomiting, and nausea, except for pain, as compared to omeprazole-treated subjects.
conclusionAccording to the results, AT, as Iranian traditional remedy, was more effective than omeprazole and placebo in reducing the symptoms in FD patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29299438PMC5745539What 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.