Evidence Hub

Comparative Efficacy of Oral Chinese Patent Medicine for Chronic Prostatitis/Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome With Sexual Dysfunction: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Yang Zhang, Hongzhao Ma, Tao Nan, Yongqiang Li, Wei Zheng, Zhihui Zhou, Xiaoyong Gong

Frontiers in Pharmacology, 2021

2,996 participants · 24 citations

Abstract

Background: Oral Chinese patent medicine (OCPM) combined with western medicine (WM) are believed to be effective for the therapy of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) with sexual dysfunction (SD). These western medicines mainly involve antibiotics, phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitor (PDE-5i), α-blockers. But there is no randomized controlled trial (RCT) that directly compares the efficacy of different OCPM. Hence, we operated a network meta-analysis (NMA) to contrast the efficacy of different OCPM for CP/CPPS with SD. Methods: Relevant studies were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), and Wanfang database. All of the RCTs concentrated on the use of OCPM to cure CP/CPPS with SD from the inception of the databases to November 2020. We appraised the risk of bias under the Cochrane Handbook and CONSORT statement. The data were statistically analyzed via STATA 13.0 and WinBUGS 1.4.3 instrument. Results: Altogether, 30 pieces of literature with 2,996 participants containing 11 oral Chinese patent medicine and 11 interventions were included in the NMA. In terms of The National Institutes of Health chronic prostatitis symptom index (NIH-CPSI), Qianlie Shutong Capsules (QLSTC) + WM had the most possible of being the optimal treatment. In the light of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5), Congrong Yishen Granules (CRYSG) + WM had…

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: 2,996 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