SynthesisSystematic reviews2025
Efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal compounds for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative effectiveness of moxibustion-based combination therapies for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 50 randomized trials.Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
- Trial
- Herbal decoction and lumbar spine surgery in patients with lumbar disc herniation: a real-world study using linked electronic health records and claims data.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a leading cause of back pain, and its management remains challenging due to limited therapeutic options. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), particularly Chinese herbal compounds (CHC), has been used to treat LDH based on empirical clinical experience. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CHC in treating LDH, comparing it with conventional Western medicine treatments.
methodsA systematic search was conducted across multiple electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and Chinese databases (CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and SinoMed), up to May 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TCM with Western medicine for LDH were included. Data extraction and bias assessment were performed independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Statistical analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.0 software. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (number CRD42023434493).
resultsTwenty-seven RCTs with 3133 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that CHC had superior outcomes compared to Western medicine in several key measures: effective rate (RR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.08-1.16, P < 0.00001), final follow-up (RR = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.08-1.18, P < 0.00001), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score (SMD = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.17-1.55, P = 0.01), visual analog scale (VAS) score (SMD = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.29-1.03, P = 0.0004), and safety (RR = 0.05, 95% CI: 0.01-0.25, P = 0.0003). Subgroup analyses indicated that CHC was particularly beneficial for patients with longstanding disease (LDH > 18 months) and those intolerant to NSAIDs.
conclusionsThis meta-analysis suggests that CHC is more effective than Western medicine in treating LDH, with benefits in pain relief and functional improvement. However, the evidence quality was downgraded due to significant risks of bias, high heterogeneity in outcomes, and the limited number of studies reporting safety data. Future studies should address these limitations through more rigorous study designs, longer follow-up periods, and standardized protocols. If future trials confirm these findings, CHC may be a valuable complementary treatment for LDH, particularly in patients with NSAID intolerance or chronic conditions.
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.