4.6 Review

Chinese Herbal Medicine for Functional Dyspepsia With Psychological Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

FRONTIERS IN NEUROSCIENCE
卷 16, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2022.933290

关键词

Chinese herbal medicine; functional dyspepsia (FD); psychological disorder; metaanalysis; effectiveness

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81820108033]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) in the treatment of functional dyspepsia (FD). The results showed that CHM treatment had a significant improvement in the total effective rate of FD, as well as the reduction of symptoms and psychological disorders. However, more high-quality studies are needed to support these conclusions due to the limitations in the quantity and quality of the included studies.
Background and Aims: Functional dyspepsia (FD) is closely associated with gut-brain interaction disorder (DGBI), characterized by the interaction of gastrointestinal symptoms and central nervous system dysregulation. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has a good concurrent effect in the treatment of FD, especially for patients with concurrent psychological disorders. A meta-analysis was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CHMs in the treatment of FD. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Chinese Biological Medical Database (CBM), Wanfang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP) were searched to collect randomized controlled trials of FD treated with CHM. The retrieval time limit is from the establishment of the database till 11 April 2022. Two researchers independently searched databases, screened documents, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias of included studies. RevMan 5.4 software was used for meta-analysis. Results: A total of 11 studies including 951 patients were included. The study was divided into two parts. The first part included 5 clinical trials, including 471 patients. The experimental group was treated only with CHM and the control group was only treated with placebo. The results of first part showed that the total effective rate of CHM in the treatment of FD was higher than that in the placebo group (84.5 vs. 49.4%) [relative risk (RR) = 1.76; 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.13, 2.75); P = 0.01]. In addition, CHM treatment could reduce the total symptom score [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -10.05; 95% CI (-13.50, -6.59); Z = 5.70; P < 0.0001] and depression score [SMD = -7.68; 95% CI (-14.43, -0.94); Z = 2.23; P = 0.03]. The second part included 6 clinical trials, including 480 patients. The experimental group was only treated with CHM and the control group was treated with prokinetic agents combined with flupentixol melitracen (deanxit). The results of second part showed that the total effective rate of CHM in the treatment of FD was higher than that of the control group (92.6 vs. 78.8%) [RR = 1.17; 95% CI (1.09, 1.26), P < 0.0001]. In addition, CHM treatment could reduce HAMA score [mean difference (MD) = -3.19; 95% CI (-3.79, -2.59); Z = 10.40; P < 0.00001], HAMD score [MD = -4.32; 95% CI (-6.04, -2.61); Z = 4.94; P < 0.00001], and gastric emptying rate [MD = 12.62; 95% CI (5.84, 19.40); Z = 3.65; P = 0.0003]. The results of the two parts of the meta-analysis showed no serious adverse reactions, and there was no significant difference in the adverse reactions between the experimental group and the control group [MD = 1.14; 95% CI (0.53, 2.42); Z = 0.33; P = 0.74]; [MD = 0.14; 95% CI (0.01, 2.67); Z = 1.30; P = 0.19]. Conclusion: The current evidence shows that CHM treatment has great potential and safety in alleviating the symptoms of FD and improving the psychological disorders of anxiety and depression in patients with FD. Limited by the quantity and quality of the included studies and other biases, the above conclusions need more high-quality studies to be verified.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据