Scientific Evidence of Chinese Herbal Medicine (Gegen Qinlian Decoction) in the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis

Jinke Huang; Jiaqi Zhang; Yifan Wang; Jing Ma; Xuefei Yang; Xiaoxue Guo; Mi Lv; Jinxin Ma; Yijun Zheng; Fengyun Wang; Xudong Tang

doi:10.1155/2022/7942845

Scientific Evidence of Chinese Herbal Medicine (Gegen Qinlian Decoction) in the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis

Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2022 Mar 14:2022:7942845. doi: 10.1155/2022/7942845. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Jinke Huang^{1

2}, Jiaqi Zhang¹, Yifan Wang³, Jing Ma^{1

2}, Xuefei Yang³, Xiaoxue Guo⁴, Mi Lv^{1

2}, Jinxin Ma³, Yijun Zheng^{1

2}, Fengyun Wang^{1

3}, Xudong Tang^{1

2

3}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Gastroenterology, Xiyuan Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
² China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
³ Department of Gastroenterology, Peking University Traditional Chinese Medicine Clinical Medical School (Xiyuan), Beijing, China.
⁴ Graduate School, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.

Abstract

Objectives: Gegen Qinlian decoction (GQD), a Chinese herbal compound, has been widely used in the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) in China. However, evidence from systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) of GQD in UC remains highly controversial. To collate, evaluate, and synthesize the current evidence, we carried out this study.

Methods: SRs/MAs of GQD for UC were obtained from eight databases. Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) was utilized to appraise the methodological quality, Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for reporting quality, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) for evidence quality.

Results: Four eligible SRs/MAs were obtained. According to AMSTAR 2, all SRs/MAs were graded as critically low quality. According to PRISMA checklist, all SRs/MAs failed to report the information of protocol and registration. With GRADE, no outcome measure with high-quality evidence was found, and the evidence quality for outcome measures was in the moderate to critically low levels.

Conclusions: GQD with conventional medicine (CM) seems to be more effective in UC than CM alone. This finding provides a new alternative strategy for the treatment of UC. However, owing to the limitations of the evidence provided by the included SRs/MAs, this conclusion must be treated with caution.