ReviewCureus2024
The Clinical Effect and Safety of Dihuang Decoction in Henoch-Schönlein Purpura Compared With Different Traditional Programs: A Network Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review aims to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of Dihuang decoction (DD), anti-inflammatory drugs (AIDs), blood circulation improvement drugs (BCIDs), and conventional therapy (CT) in the management of Henoch-Schönlein purpura (HSP) and to establish their comparative effectiveness rankings. Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study (PICOS) design framework, we developed a detailed search strategy. The literature search included databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, Weipu Journal Data, and the Chinese Biomedical Database, covering studies published up to June 2024. We included randomized controlled trials that featured the DD as the experimental intervention, with three remaining treatments as comparators. Our analysis encompassed 63 studies with 5,435 participants, divided into 2,817 in the experimental group and 2,618 in the control group. The network meta-analysis suggested that the DD potentially surpasses AIDs, BCIDs, and CT in the management of HSP. This conclusion is supported by its superior SUCRA (Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking) scores across various measures, including the overall effective rate of medication, time to relief or disappearance of the rash, incidence of adverse reactions, time to relief or disappearance of abdominal pain, time to relief or disappearance of arthritic swelling or pain, IgA levels, and the relapse rate within six months (SUCRA scores: 100.0%, 88.3%, 79.8%, 94.4%, 99.9%, 88.3%, and 95.4%, respectively). In terms of overall effectiveness rate, the SUCRA efficacy rankings are as follows: DD > AIDs > AIDs+BCID > BCID > CT. Regarding rash relief and regression time, the SUCRA efficacy rankings are as follows: DD > CT > AIDs+BCID > AIDs. For the incidence rate of adverse reactions, the SUCRA efficacy rankings are as follows: DD > CT > AIDs > BCID > AIDs+BCID. For the relief and disappearance of abdominal pain, the SUCRA efficacy rankings are as follows: DD > CT > AIDs+BCID > AIDs. In terms of relief and disappearance of joint swelling and pain, the SUCRA efficacy rankings are as follows: DD > AIDs+BCID > AIDs. Regarding IgA changes, the SUCRA efficacy rankings are as follows: DD > CT > BCID > AIDs+BCID > AIDs. For the six-month recurrence rate, the SUCRA efficacy rankings are as follows: DD > AIDs > AIDs+BCID > CT. The DD appears to be a more effective alternative for treating HSP compared to AIDs, BCIDs, and CT. We hope that this study will provide better assistance to clinical practice.
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.