SynthesisMedicine2019
Efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine for chronic gastritis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and safety of LiWei capsule in chronic non-atrophic gastritis with erosions: a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Naeso-san, a traditional herbal formula, attenuates HCl/ethanol-induced gastric injury via MAPK and NF-κB pathway modulation in mice.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Clinical study on microscopic syndrome differentiation and traditional Chinese medicine treatment for liver stomach disharmony in chronic gastritis.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- The safety and efficacy of Houtou Jianweiling tablet in patients with chronic non-atrophic gastritis: a double-blind, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Review
- Article
- Efficacy and safety of Zuojin Pill for chronic gastritis: Protocol for a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo systematically evaluate efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in treating chronic gastritis (CG).
methodsData sources from PubMed, Embase, Springer Link, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Scientific Journals Database, Chinese Biomedicine Database, and Wan-fang database were searched up to July 5, 2018. Review Manager software version 5.3, the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation profiler software were conducted for this meta-analysis.
resultsSixteen studies involving 1673 participants (906 vs 767) were included in this study. Pooled data showed significant statistical differences between TCM groups and current routine pharmacotherapy (RP) groups in overall clinical efficacy (odds ratio [OR] 4.65; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.29, 6.56; P < .00001), efficacy under endoscopy (OR 2.46; 95% CI 1.12, 5.43; P = .03), stomach distension (mean difference [MD] -0.37; 95% CI -0.56, -0.19; P < .0001), stomachache (standardized MD [SMD] -0.80; 95% CI -1.45, -0.14; P = .02), and belching (SMD -2.00; 95% CI -3.80, -0.20; P = .03). However, acid regurgitation (SMD -0.71; 95% CI -1.69, 0.28; P = .16) and anorexia (SMD -0.75; 95% CI -2.30, 0.80; P = .35) showed no significant statistical differences between 2 groups. In addition, incidence of adverse reactions of TCM groups was lower than that of RP groups.
conclusionEvidence from this meta-analysis suggests that TCM could be more efficacious than current RP in treating CG. But further standardized research of rigorous design should be needed to further validate its efficacy.
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.