ArticlePloS one2025
The effectiveness of Evodia rutaecarpa hot compress on the recovery of gastrointestinal function after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: A propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Herbal hot compress combined with bianstone warm ironing improves anxiety and cognitive impairment via gut-brain-HPA axis in pubertal mesenteric lymphadenitis rats.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Medicinal Plants for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review of Antiemetic, Chemosensitizing, and Immunomodulatory Mechanisms.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2025Review
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
backgroundAlthough the use of hot compresses with the herbal medicine Evodia rutaecarpa (ER) as a complementary and alternative therapy to promote recovery of postoperative gastrointestinal function is gradually increasing in clinical practice, there is still a lack of relevant empirical studies. Particularly, the role of ER hot compress therapy on gastrointestinal recovery post-laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer has not been well investigated. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and applicability of ER hot compress therapy for the recovery of postoperative gastrointestinal function.
methodsThis is a retrospective cohort study. Patients were divided into two cohorts, the ER group and the non-ER group. Propensity score matching(PSM) was introduced to limit confounding, and independent samples t-tests, non-parametric tests, or Chi-squared tests were used to compare these two cohorts.
resultsA total of 454 patients were included, with 267 (59%) receiving ER hot compress therapy and 187 (41%) not. After 1:1 PSM, 320 patients were analyzed (160 in each group). Compared to the ER group, patients in the non-ER group had shorter times to return to a semi-liquid diet (p = 0.030) and hospital stay (p<0.001), as well as lower hospital costs (p<0.001). Subgroup analyses revealed no statistically significant differences in the length of hospital stay, hospital costs, postoperative time to return to full-liquid diet, or time to return to semi-liquid diet among stage I and II tumor patients. However, except for hospital costs, the means and standard deviations of the other indicators were generally lower in the ER group. Complication incidence showed no significant difference between the two cohorts before and after PSM.
conclusionsThe use of ER hot packs after laparoscopic surgery in patients with colorectal cancer has a non-significant effect on the recovery of the gastrointestinal function and, given the results of the study, it is likely that patients with early-stage tumors may benefit more. Therefore, healthcare providers need to consider the individualization, practicality, and economics of treatment options.
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.