ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Comparative efficacy and safety of mesalazine-based regimens with traditional Chinese medicines in mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis.
Article 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) formulations are increasingly used in combination with mesalazine to treat mild-to-moderate active ulcerative colitis (UC). However, direct comparisons between various TCM regimens are limited. Methods: We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis of 34 randomized controlled trials (n = 2,854) comparing oral mesalazine (1.0-4.0 g/day) alone versus mesalazine plus one of eight TCM formulations: Kangfuxin solution, Shaoyao decoction, Glycyrrhizae decoction, Scutellaria decoction (Huangqin granules), Baitouweng decoction (Pulsatilla; retention enema), Shenling Baizhu Powder, CurQD formula, or Fufangkushen capsules. Outcomes included clinical efficacy, adverse events, Mayo score, serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), and intestinal Bifidobacteria, Lactobacilli, and Results: Most TCM-mesalazine combinations improved clinical efficacy versus mesalazine alone. CurQD and Kangfuxin had the highest probabilities of being most effective for symptom improvement (SUCRA 96.7% and 72.7%, respectively); the direct CurQD-mesalazine comparison showed RR = 2.67 (95% CI 1.16-6.14). Adverse-event rates were similar across regimens, with lower incidence of adverse events. Mayo score reductions were greatest with Glycyrrhizae decoction (MD = -1.40), Baitouweng decoction via retention enema (MD = -1.09), and Kangfuxin solution (MD = -1.07). Scutellaria granules produced the largest IL-6 decrease (MD = -53.28 pg/mL) and ranked highest for TNF-α reduction, followed by Kangfuxin. For gut microbiota, Shaoyao decoction ranked highest for increasing Bifidobacteria, Glycyrrhizae decoction for increasing Lactobacilli, and Glycyrrhizae also reduced Conclusion: Combining mesalazine with selected TCM formulations can enhance clinical response, reduce inflammatory cytokines, and beneficially modulate gut microbiota without increasing adverse events. CurQD or Kangfuxin may be prioritized for symptomatic improvement, Glycyrrhizae or Baitouweng for Mayo score reduction, Scutellaria for cytokine control, and Shaoyao or Glycyrrhizae for microbiota modulation. High-quality multicenter RCTs are warranted to confirm these comparative rankings.
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.