Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35356743›Full record

ArticleGastroenterology research and practice2022

Scientific Evidence of Chinese Herbal Medicine (Gegen Qinlian Decoction) in the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis.

Jinke Huang, Jiaqi Zhang, Yifan Wang, Jing Ma, Xuefei Yang, Xiaoxue Guo, Mi Lv, Jinxin Ma, Yijun Zheng, Fengyun Wang and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gastroenterology research and practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Gegen Qinlian decoction ameliorates experimental colitis in miceferroptosis pathway.Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jinke HuangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Xiyuan Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5623-0564
Jiaqi ZhangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Xiyuan Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3143-5651
Yifan WangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Peking University Traditional Chinese Medicine Clinical Medical School (Xiyuan), Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8274-9434
Jing MaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Xiyuan Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7144-9273
Xuefei YangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Peking University Traditional Chinese Medicine Clinical Medical School (Xiyuan), Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4439-6428
Xiaoxue GuoGraduate School, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5720-8211
Mi LvDepartment of Gastroenterology, Xiyuan Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1715-8643
Jinxin MaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Peking University Traditional Chinese Medicine Clinical Medical School (Xiyuan), Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5659-5360
Yijun ZhengDepartment of Gastroenterology, Xiyuan Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5945-2157
Fengyun WangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Xiyuan Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4058-7905
Xudong TangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Xiyuan Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0391-3895
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNPeking University · CNBeijing University of Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Gegen Qinlian decoction (GQD), a Chinese herbal compound, has been widely used in the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) in China. However, evidence from systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) of GQD in UC remains highly controversial. To collate, evaluate, and synthesize the current evidence, we carried out this study. Methods: SRs/MAs of GQD for UC were obtained from eight databases. Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) was utilized to appraise the methodological quality, Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for reporting quality, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) for evidence quality. Results: Four eligible SRs/MAs were obtained. According to AMSTAR 2, all SRs/MAs were graded as critically low quality. According to PRISMA checklist, all SRs/MAs failed to report the information of protocol and registration. With GRADE, no outcome measure with high-quality evidence was found, and the evidence quality for outcome measures was in the moderate to critically low levels. Conclusions: GQD with conventional medicine (CM) seems to be more effective in UC than CM alone. This finding provides a new alternative strategy for the treatment of UC. However, owing to the limitations of the evidence provided by the included SRs/MAs, this conclusion must be treated with caution.

Identifiers

PMID35356743
PMCPMC8958105
OpenAlexW4220954395

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.