ReviewJournal of pain research2026
Comparative Effectiveness of Chinese Patent Medicines for Chronic Prostatitis/Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of pain research, 2026. 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
Objective: Chronic Prostatitis/Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome (CP/CPPS) presents with persistent pelvic pain, urinary symptoms, and psychological burden, severely affecting patients' quality of life. While antibiotics and α-blockers are commonly prescribed, their long-term efficacy is limited and adverse reactions are frequent. Chinese patent medicines (CPMs) have emerged as promising alternatives, yet the lack of head-to-head evidence among formulations hinders evidence-based clinical recommendations. Methods: Eight databases-CNKI, WanFang, VIP, SinoMed, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library-were searched from inception to November 1, 2025. Randomized controlled trials enrolling adults with CP/CPPS treated with CPMs versus standard therapy (ST) were included. Bias was assessed with ROB 2, and evidence certainty with CINeMA. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed, and outcomes were summarized using forest plots, league tables, and SUCRA curves in RStudio. Results: Seventy-six trials (n=8431) involving 12 CPMs were analyzed. All studies were conducted in China, and all CPMs outperformed ST in enhancing the total effective rate and reducing NIH-CPSI scores. Shuangshi Tonglin Capsules (SSTL) ranked highest for both overall efficacy (OR = 5.6; 95% CI [2.0, 17]; SUCRA 73.8%) and NIH-CPSI reduction (MD = -8.0; 95% CI [-11, -4.8]; SUCRA 93.3%). SSTL also provided the largest improvements in pain (MD = -5.4; 95% CI [-8.0, -2.8]) and quality of life (MD = -4.3; 95% CI [-5.7, -2.9]). Conclusion: Compared with ST, CPMs significantly improved CP/CPPS symptoms, with SSTL showing the greatest overall benefit. However, since all included studies originated from China, the generalizability of these findings to other populations may be limited.
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.