Review
Copyright ©2009 The WJG Press and Baishideng.
World J Gastroenterol. Oct 21, 2009; 15(39): 4886-4895
Published online Oct 21, 2009. doi: 10.3748/wjg.15.4886
Figure 1
Figure 1 Flow diagram for literature search. TCM: Traditional Chinese medicine; CJN: China Journal Net; CHM: Chinese herbal medicine; RCTs: Randomized controlled trials.
Figure 2
Figure 2 Methodological quality graph: judgments about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figure 3
Figure 3 Methodological quality summary: judgments about each methodological quality item for each included study. a: Adequate sequence generation? b: Allocation concealment? c: Blinding? d: Incomplete outcome data addressed? e: Free of selective reporting? f: Free of other bias?
Figure 4
Figure 4 Comparison of CHM vs cisapride, failure to respond at endpoint. 1Add-on treatment: CHM + cisapride vs cisapride; 2Add-on combined treatment: CHM + (cisapride + lactulose) vs cisapride + lactulose. CHM: Chinese herbal medicine.
Figure 5
Figure 5 Comparison of CHM/CHM + PEG vs PEG, failure to respond at endpoint. 1Add-on combined treatment: CHM + PEG vs PEG. PEG: Polyethylene glycol.
Figure 6
Figure 6 Comparison of CHM/CHM + mosapride vs mosapride, failure to respond at endpoint. 13 arms study: CHM vs mosapride; 23 arms study: CHM + mosapride vs mosapride.
Figure 7
Figure 7 Comparison of CHM vs phenolphthalein, failure to respond at endpoint.
Figure 8
Figure 8 Comparison of CHM vs MaRen auxiliary, failure to respond at endpoint.
Figure 9
Figure 9 Comparison of RunChangTongBianNongSuo Pill vs MaRen Pill/MaZiRen Pill, failure to respond at endpoint.