Trial reportChinese journal of integrative medicine2022
Efficacy and Safety of Guihuang Formula in Treating Type III Prostatitis Patients with Dampness-Heat and Blood Stasis Syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Chinese journal of integrative medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pathological characteristics of traditional Chinese medicine Shi Zheng and related therapeutic formula, effective compounds: a general review.Chinese medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Relationship between pyroptosis-mediated inflammation and the pathogenesis of prostate disease.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo observe the efficacy and safety of Guihuang Formula (GHF) in treating patients with type III prostatitis and Chinese medicine syndrome of dampness-heat and blood stasis.
methodsSixty-six patients diagnosed with type III prostatitis with dampness-heat and blood stasis syndrome were randomly divided into the treatment group (GHF) and the control group (tamsulosin) using a random number table, with 33 cases each group. The treatment group received GHF twice a day, and the control group received tamsulosin 0.2 mg once daily before bedtime. Patients in both groups received treatment for 6 weeks and was followed up for 2 weeks. The outcomes included the National Institute of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) score, Chinese Medicine Symptoms Score (CMSS), expressed prostatic secretions (EPS) and adverse events (AEs).
resultsAfter treatment, the NIH-CPSI total score and domain scores of pain discomfort, urination and quality of life decreased significantly from the baseline in both groups (P<0.05). The CMSS score decreased in both groups (P<0.05). The WBC count decreased and lecithin body count increased in both groups (P<0.05). GHF showed a more obvious advantage in reducing the pain discomfort and quality of life domain scores of NIH-CPSI, reducing the CMSS score, increasing the improvement rate of the WBC and lecithin body counts, compared with the control group (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in decreasing urination domain score of NIH-CPSI between two groups (P>0.05). In addition, no serious AEs were observed.
conclusionGHF is effective in treating type III prostatitis patients with dampness-heat and blood stasis syndrome without serious AEs. (Registration No. ChiCTR1900026966).
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.