Evidence Hub

Evaluating efficacy and mechanism of traditional Chinese medicine in diabetes treatment: a meta-analysis and network pharmacology study

Tang S, Lin J, Li G, Guo H, Liu C, Wu F

Frontiers in endocrinology, 2025

7,318 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a prevalent chronic metabolic disorder, and the rising rates of this condition, along with its complications, significantly threaten public health. Traditional treatments for diabetes have certain limitations in practical applications, and it is particularly important to find new, effective treatments with fewer side effects. With a long history and rich experience, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) effectively treats diabetes.

METHODS: Data from randomized controlled trials concerning TCM and its effects on diabetes were gathered and analyzed from various databases. A meta-analysis was conducted on the 58 selected articles, and the potential mechanisms of action of the active ingredients in TCM were examined using network pharmacology techniques.

RESULTS: Meta-analysis of 58 randomized trials (n=7,318) demonstrated significant improvements in fasting glucose (MD=-0.53 mmol/L [-0.67,-0.39], P<0.00001), HbA1c (MD=-0.40% [-0.61,-0.20], P = 0.0001), and insulin resistance (HOMA-IR: MD=-0.90 [-1.51,-0.29], P = 0.004), alongside favorable lipid modulation (LDL: MD=-0.14 mmol/L, P = 0.0002). Network pharmacology revealed six core herbs (Astragalus membranaceus, Coptis chinensis, etc.) targeting 32 hub genes (AKT1, IL1B, PPARG, etc.) through three key pathways: insulin signaling (PI3K-AKT), inflammatory regulation (TNF/IL-17), and oxidative stress response (HIF-1/NRF2 axis). The polypharmacological effects were mediated by multi-component interactions…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 7,318 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