Evidence Hub

Efficacy and mechanism of Chinese herbal medicine Banxia-Houpo-Tang for depression: a meta-analysis and network pharmacology analysis

Hui-Ju Kwon, Hyebin Seung, Khoa Nguyen Tran, In-Jun Yang, Sang-Ho Kim

Traditional Medicine Research, 2025

3 citations

Abstract

Depression manifests as an enduring experience of sorrow and a loss of interest, appetite, and engagement. Currently, no study has systematically reviewed the efficacy of Chinese herbal medicine Banxia-Houpo-Tang (BHT) for the treatment of depression in animal experimental research. This systematic review sought to provide evidence regarding the efficacy and molecular mechanism of BHT for depression. Fifteen electronic databases were searched until November 23, 2023. Two researchers individually screened abstracts and full texts for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies using the risk of bias tool from the Systematic Review Center for Laboratory Animal Experimentation. We conducted the meta-analysis for behavior and biological outcomes. Network pharmacology and molecular docking analyses were conducted to predict the key contributors to BHT’s antidepressant effects. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. This review included 23 studies. The meta-analysis indicated that BHT considerably reduced immobility time in the forced swim test (SMD = −2.89, 95% CI: −3.92 to −1.87, P < 0.00001, I 2 = 93%), and tail suspended swim test (SMD = −2.70, 95% CI: −3.64 to −1.76, P < 0.00001, I 2 = 90%), and increased movement in open field tests (SMD = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.25–1.00, P = 0.28, I 2 = 21%). Also, BHT markedly increased 5-hydroxytryptamine (SMD = 1.39, 95% CI = 0.61–2.18, P < 0.00001, I 2 = 92%),…

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.

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