SynthesisMedicine2025
Efficacy and safety of herbal medicine treatment on postsurgical recovery in gastric cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGastric cancer (GC) is the second most prevalent cancer in Korea, and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although advancements in early detection and treatment have improved survival rates, management of postsurgical recovery remains vital. Herbal medicine (HM) has emerged as a potential adjunct therapy for enhancing the recovery and quality of life (QoL) of patients post-GC surgery.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of HM in the postsurgical recovery of patients with GC. We searched both Korean and international databases and identified 16 randomized controlled trials that met our inclusion criteria. We assessed the study quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and analyzed the data using the Review Manager Software (RevMan).
resultsOur analysis included 1546 patients from selected studies, demonstrating that HM significantly improved gastrointestinal recovery times, including the time to first flatus, bowel movement, and return of bowel sounds. Significant improvements were also observed in nutritional markers, such as albumin and prealbumin, along with beneficial effects on immune markers, such as CD3+ and CD4+ levels. QoL assessments using the WHOQOL-BREF and QLQ-C30 indicated substantial improvements. HM had a favorable safety profile, showing a reduced incidence of adverse effects compared to the controls.
conclusionThe findings suggest that HM can significantly enhance recovery and improve quality of life following GC surgery, with a favorable safety profile. However, due to the considerable heterogeneity in study results, extended clinical trials and rigorous follow-ups are recommended to comprehensively assess long-term effects and side effects.
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.