Evidence Hub

Comparative efficacy of commercial oral poly-herbal traditional Chinese medicine formulations combined with western medicine in benign prostatic hyperplasia management: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Hengda Zeng, Zi-Qiao Wang, Weian Zhu, Xiaoyang Li, Bo-Hao Liu, Chuhao Chen, Pei-Shan Huang, Yun Luo

Frontiers in Pharmacology, 2024

11,037 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Background: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is prevalent among the aging male population and often presents with distressing lower urinary tract symptoms. There is emerging evidence that commercial oral poly-herbal traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) formulation combined with Western medicine (WM) may offer enhanced therapeutic effects compared to WM alone in BPH treatment. Nevertheless, determining the optimal formulations for BPH remains controversial. We aimed to employ a network meta-analysis to compare and assess differences among commonly used and recommended poly-herbal TCM formulations outlined in the Chinese guidelines for BPH treatment, providing clinical medication recommendations and guidance. Methods: We extensively searched for RCTs of BPH patients that had oral poly-herbal TCM formulations and WM treatment, covering both English and Chinese databases up to 31 October 2023. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool Version 2 (ROB2). A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to assess the effectiveness of various formulations, followed by sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Results: Our meta-analysis included 107 RCTs involving 11,037 patients across 16 oral poly-herbal TCM formulations. The quality of the selected studies was assessed as “Some concerns”. Most formulations combined with WM demonstrated superior therapeutic efficacy compared to WM alone. For clinical effective rate, Jingui Shenqi pill (JGSQ) + WM…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. 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: 11,037 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