Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35069773›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2022

Five-Flavor

Wen Bin Hou, Wei Jia Sun, Xiao Wen Zhang, Yuan Xi Li, You You Zheng, Yu Xin Sun, Jian Ping Liu, Zhao Lan Liu

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Evaluation of the safety and efficacy ofFrontiers in immunology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Wen Bin HouCenter for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing 100029, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2235-3379
Wei Jia SunCenter for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing 100029, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2120-5892
Xiao Wen ZhangCenter for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing 100029, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1724-4381
Yuan Xi LiBeijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8395-1826
You You ZhengCenter for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing 100029, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4827-9448
Yu Xin SunCenter for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing 100029, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0809-1280
Jian Ping LiuCenter for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing 100029, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0320-061X
Zhao Lan LiuCenter for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing 100029, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2992-1578
Beijing University of Chinese Medicine · CNBeijing University of Technology · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUlcerative colitis (UC), a chronic inflammatory bowel disease, is characterized by abdominal pain, diarrhea, and mucopurulent bloody stool. In recent years, the incidence and prevalence of UC have been increasing consistently. Five-flavor

methodsSix electronic databases were searched from inception to March 2021. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing FSEC or FSEC plus conventional Western medicine with conventional Western medicine in participants with UC were included. Two authors screened all references, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data independently. Binary data were presented as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and metric data as mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. The overall certainty of the evidence was assessed by GRADE.

resultsWe included 15 RCTs (1194 participants, 763 in the FSEC group and 431 in the control group). The treatment duration ranged from 42 to 64 days. Twelve trials compared FSEC with conventional Western medicine, and two trials compared FSEC plus conventional medicine with conventional medicine. Another trial compared FSEC plus mesalazine with compound glutamine enteric capsules plus mesalazine. FSEC showed a higher clinical effective rate (improved clinical symptoms, colonoscopy results, and stools) (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.20; 729 participants; 8 trials; low-quality evidence) as well as the effective rate of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) syndromes (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.20; 452 participants; 5 trials; low-quality evidence) compared to mesalazine. There was no significant difference in the adverse events between FSEC and control groups.

conclusionsFSEC may show effectiveness in UC treatment compared to conventional medicine, and the use of FSEC may not increase the risk of adverse events. Due to the limited number of clinical trials and low methodological quality of the included trials, our findings must be interpreted with discretion.

Identifiers

PMID35069773
PMCPMC8769833
OpenAlexW4225362473

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.