Trial reportChinese journal of integrative medicine2024
Efficacy of Wuda Granule on Recovery of Gastrointestinal Function after Laparoscopic Bowel Resection: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Chinese journal of integrative medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging Traditions: Integrating TCM Into ERAS for Enhanced Gastrointestinal Recovery -A Scoping Review.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Article
- Wuda Granule Alleviates DSS-Induced Colitis in Mice by Inhibiting Inflammation, Protecting Intestinal Barrier and Reducing Oxidative Stress Through Nrf2/Keap1/HO-1 Pathway.Journal of inflammation research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of Wuda Granule (WDG) on recovery of gastrointestinal function after laparoscopic bowel resection in the setting of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)-based perioperative care.
methodsA total of 108 patients aged 18 years or older undergoing laparoscopic bowel resection with a surgical duration of 2 to 4.5 h were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either WDG or placebo (10 g/bag) twice a day from postoperative days 1-3, combining with ERAS-based perioperative care. The primary outcome was time to first defecation. Secondary outcomes were time to first flatus, time to first tolerance of liquid or semi-liquid food, gastrointestinal-related symptoms and length of stay. Subgroup analysis of the primary outcome according to sex, age, tumor site, surgical time, histories of underlying disease or history of abdominal surgery was undertaken. Adverse events were observed and recorded.
resultsA total of 107 patients [53 in the WDG group and 54 in the placebo group; 61.7 ± 12.1 years; 50 males (46.7%)] were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The patients in the WDG group had a significantly shorter time to first defecation and flatus [between-group difference -11.01 h (95% CI -20.75 to -1.28 h), P=0.012 for defecation; -5.41 h (-11.10 to 0.27 h), P=0.040 for flatus] than the placebo group. Moreover, the extent of improvement in postoperative gastrointestinal-related symptoms in the WDG group was significantly better than that in the placebo group (P<0.05). Subgroup analyses revealed that the benefits of WDG were significantly superior in patients who were male, or under 60 years old, or surgical time less than 3 h, or having no history of basic disease or no history of abdominal surgery. There were no serious adverse events.
conclusionThe addition of WDG to an ERAS postoperative care may be a viable strategy to enhance gastrointestinal function recovery after laparoscopic bowel resection surgery. (Registry No. ChiCTR2100046242).
Indexed as
Identifiers
39251465What 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.