ArticleGastroenterology research and practice2020
Comparison of a Novel Herbal Medicine and Omeprazole in the Treatment of Functional Dyspepsia: A Randomized Double-Blinded Clinical Trial.
Article in Gastroenterology research and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-Chinese herbal medicines for functional dyspepsia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Association Between Dyspeptic Symptoms and Eating Habits in the Colombian Population.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Food, Dietary Patterns, or Is Eating Behavior to Blame? Analyzing the Nutritional Aspects of Functional Dyspepsia.Nutrients · 2023Review
- Effects of sumac aqueous extract along with eating and drinking modification on functional dyspepsia symptoms in comparison with omeprazole: An open-label, randomized, controlled clinical trial.Avicenna journal of phytomedicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe
methodsThe present study was a randomized double-blind clinical trial with parallel groups in Iran. Patients in control and intervention arms received omeprazole 20 mg once a day and 250 mg soft-gel capsules containing 180 mg of essential oils of ZM, AG, and TA twice a day for two weeks, respectively. The primary outcome was the sufficient response rate in the postprandial distress syndrome (PDS) and/or epigastric pain syndrome (EPS) at the end of the intervention. Secondary outcomes were the improvement rate in the PDS, EPS, Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS), and quality of life scores. Also, safety and tolerability were assessed.
resultsThe within-group comparison of EPS, PDS, total GSRS, GSRS Pain, and GSRS Dyspepsia scores with that at the end of the treatment indicated a significant reduction in both control and intervention groups (
conclusionBased on the study findings, this herbal medicine can be considered as an appropriate treatment of FD. However, a larger multicenter trial is needed to confirm the results of the trial.
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.