SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of Chinese medicine external therapies for diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D) is a chronic functional gastrointestinal disorder that significantly impairs patients' quality of life. While various Chinese medicine external therapies (CMETs) have been widely utilized, their relative superiority and safety remain poorly defined. This study aims to evaluate and rank the comparative efficacy and safety of different CMETs for IBS-D. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and CNKI from inception to March 2026 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating CMETs for IBS-D. The primary outcomes were clinical total effective rate (TER) and the IBS Severity Scoring System (IBS-SSS). Secondary outcomes included IBS-Quality of Life (IBS-QOL), abdominal pain scores, and adverse events (AE). A frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed using the netmeta package in R software. Interventions were ranked using Results: Twenty-two RCTs involving 11 distinct interventions were included. For the clinical total effective rate (TER), moxibustion ( Conclusion: Chinese medicine external therapies may provide beneficial adjunctive or complementary options for patients with IBS-D. Moxibustion ranked highest for study-defined TER, whereas EA ranked highest for IBS-SSS and abdominal pain reduction. However, CINeMA assessment indicated low or very low confidence in several estimates; therefore, these rankings should be interpreted cautiously. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=1324349, identifier CRD420261324349.
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.