Evidence Hub

Efficacy and safety of oral Chinese patent medicine for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Yiwen Tang, Yuyang Cai, Jiasen Ding, Ronfu Ji, Xiong Wang, Zejia Zhang, Feng Xu, Zhan Gao

Frontiers in Medicine, 2024

7,800 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Objective This paper aims to evaluate the disparities in efficacy and safety across various oral Chinese patent medicines for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), using a frequency-based reticulated meta-analysis. Methods The researchers searched the following databases: Web of Science, PubMed, Excerpta Medical Database (Embase), Cochrane Library, China Knowledge Network (CNKI), China Biomedical Literature Service System (SinoMed), Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform and China Science and Technology Periodicals Database (VIP). Besides, the researchers collected all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of oral Chinese patent medicines, as well as simple preparations and simple preparations for benign prostatic hyperplasia from the establishment of the database until July1, 2024. After two researchers independently screened literature, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias in the included studies, a net meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 16.0 software. Results Seventy-two RCTs involving 15 oral Chinese patent medicines and a total of 7,800 patients were included. Net meta-analysis manifested that “Jinkuishenqi capsule (JKSQ) + conventional western medicine (CWM)” was the most effective way in increasing total efficiency ratio. “Huange capsule (HE) + CWM” was the most effective method in decreasing prostate volume. “Qianliesutong capsule (QLST) + CWM” was the most effective approach in decreasing residure volume. “Xialiqi capsule (XLQ) + CWM”…

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: 7,800 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