Evidence Hub

Efficacy of herbal medicine treatment based on syndrome differentiation for Parkinson’s disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials

Purumea Jun, Hui-Yan Zhao, I. Jung, O. Kwon, Chang-Hyun Han, J. Won, Jung-Hee Jang

Frontiers in Pharmacology, 2023

843 participants · 9 citations

Abstract

Background: Parkinson’s disease (PD), the second most common progressive neurodegenerative disease, causes heterogeneous clinical symptoms. Patients experience a range of motor and non-motor symptoms, and personalized diagnosis and treatment are needed. In traditional East Asian medicine, syndrome differentiation (SD) is a diagnostic approach for customized therapy that uses a comprehensive analysis and varies for the same disease. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of herbal medicine (HM) prescribed according to the SD of PD. Methods: Ten electronic databases were searched from inception to August 2021 without language limitations. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving HM for SD of PD were included. Assessment of Cochrane's risk of bias and meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was also performed. Effect measurement was summarized using the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval, through a meta-analysis. Results: Thirteen RCTs involving 843 participants were included. The overall risk of bias was either low or unclear. Compared with the placebo, a combined therapy of HM and Western medicine (WM) significantly improved the total Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) (MD = −8.03, [−10.27, −5.79], p < 0.00001; I2 = 0%) and was more beneficial, as assessed using the UPDRS (I–III), the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39, and the Non-Motor Symptoms Scale. Adverse events did not differ between the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 843 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free