SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Indigo naturalis for inflammatory bowel disease: evidence from animal studies and molecular mechanisms.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. 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.
- Altered microbial cargo in fecal microbiome-derived outer membrane vesicles as novel biomarkers for vascular dementia.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- Diet and Gut Microbiota in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Clinical and Nutritional Perspective.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Integrating "Yang transforming Qi and Yin constituting the body" with immune regulation: an evidence synthesis of multidimensional traditional chinese medicine therapy for immune thrombocytopenia.Chinese medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Indigo naturalis (IN) has been extensively used in prescriptions of traditional Chinese medicine to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), particularly ulcerative colitis (UC). However, there is a lack of quantitative, evidence-based assessments from preclinical trials. Aims: Quantitative statistical evidence regarding the efficacy of IN in animal models of IBD remains insufficient. This study performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the therapeutic effects of IN in experiments with IBD. Methods: Relevant animal studies were identified from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, SinoMed, and Wanfang databases. Two researchers independently conducted literature screening and risk-of-bias assessments using the CAMARADES 10-point quality checklist. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4, focusing on the histopathological index as the primary outcome measure. Results: Of the 15 eligible studies included, over half had low risks of bias in more than five items. Compared to controls, the histopathological index significantly improved after IN treatment ( Conclusion: IN demonstrated significant therapeutic efficacy in preclinical models of IBD, particularly at dosages exceeding 600 mg/kg. It protected colonic mucosal integrity and exerted beneficial effects through multiple molecular pathways.
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.