Wang R, Wu MX, Wang XF, Chen ZT. Meta-analysis on the efficacy of liver-soothing formulas for perimenopausal anxiety and depression. World J Psychiatry 2026; 16(1): 111471 [PMID: 41607452 DOI: 10.5498/wjp.v16.i1.111471]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Zong-Tao Chen, PhD, Professor, Health Management Center, First Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University (Third Military Medical University), No. 30 Gaotanyan Street Shapingba District, Chongqing 400038, China. zongtaochen@126.com
Research Domain of This Article
Psychiatry
Article-Type of This Article
Meta-Analysis
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Jan 19, 2026 (publication date) through Mar 9, 2026
Times Cited of This Article
Times Cited (0)
Journal Information of This Article
Publication Name
World Journal of Psychiatry
ISSN
2220-3206
Publisher of This Article
Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA
Share the Article
Wang R, Wu MX, Wang XF, Chen ZT. Meta-analysis on the efficacy of liver-soothing formulas for perimenopausal anxiety and depression. World J Psychiatry 2026; 16(1): 111471 [PMID: 41607452 DOI: 10.5498/wjp.v16.i1.111471]
Rui Wang, Ming-Xia Wu, Xiao-Fang Wang, Zong-Tao Chen, Health Management Center, First Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University (Third Military Medical University), Chongqing 400038, China
Author contributions: Wang R and Wu MX acquired, analyzed, and interpreted the data; Wang R and Wang XF drafted, revised, and approved the manuscript; Wang R and Chen ZT conceived and designed the study, and critically revised and approved the final manuscript.
Conflict-of-interest statement: All the authors report having no relevant conflicts of interest for this article.
PRISMA 2009 Checklist statement: The authors have read the PRISMA 2009 Checklist, and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the PRISMA 2009 Checklist.
Corresponding author: Zong-Tao Chen, PhD, Professor, Health Management Center, First Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University (Third Military Medical University), No. 30 Gaotanyan Street Shapingba District, Chongqing 400038, China. zongtaochen@126.com
Received: August 6, 2025 Revised: September 9, 2025 Accepted: October 23, 2025 Published online: January 19, 2026 Processing time: 146 Days and 22.2 Hours
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Perimenopausal women are prone to anxiety and depression due to fluctuating hormone levels, which significantly impair their quality of life. The current treatments have certain limitations. In traditional Chinese medicine, liver-soothing formulas are commonly prescribed for mood-related disorders, but their overall efficacy in perimenopausal anxiety and depression remains uncertain and requires verification through meta-analysis.
AIM
To provide evidence-based support for clinical decision-making and research, a meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of liver-soothing formulas in treating perimenopausal anxiety and depression.
METHODS
Relevant studies published up to April 2025 were retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Eligible studies were screened according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were extracted and analyzed using the Stata 12.0 software.
RESULTS
After searching and screening, 12 articles involving 1798 patients (922 in the treatment group and 876 in the control group) were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis showed that the standardized scores for anxiety [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.71, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): -1.06 to -0.36] and depression (SMD = -0.67, 95%CI: -1.06 to -0.27) of the treatment group were lower than those of the control group. Subgroup analysis results revealed that for anxiety, liver-soothing formulas used alone (SMD = -0.34, 95%CI: -0.50 to -0.18) or in combination (SMD = -0.88, 95%CI: -1.43 to -0.34) both significantly reduced scores compared with the control group. For depression, monotherapy of liver-soothing formulas showed no significant statistical difference between the treatment and control groups (SMD = -0.47, 95%CI: -1.11 to 0.17), whereas combination therapy produced significantly lower standardized scale scores in the treatment group than in the control group, with a statistically significant difference (SMD = -0.83, 95%CI: -1.39 to -0.28). Regarding Greene scores, no statistically significant difference was observed with monotherapy (SMD = 0.87, 95%CI: -0.32 to 2.06), whereas combination therapy had significantly lower Greene scores (SMD = -0.24, 95%CI: -0.44 to -0.04). No statistically significant difference was found between the groups in the occurrence of adverse reactions (odds ratio = 0.90, 95%CI: 0.57-1.43). However, liver-soothing formulas did not affect estrogen levels in perimenopausal women.
CONCLUSION
Compared with placebo, conventional Western medicine, or other interventions, the monotherapy of liver-soothing formulas demonstrates superior efficacy in treating perimenopausal anxiety. When used as an adjuvant, they exert a synergistic effect in alleviating negative emotions and improving overall perimenopausal symptoms.
Core Tip: This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of liver-soothing formulas for perimenopausal anxiety and depression by synthesizing data from randomized controlled trials. The results show that these formulas outperform the controls (placebo and conventional Western medicine) in reducing anxiety and depression scores, with fewer adverse reactions. When combined with other interventions, they exert synergistic effects. However, the high heterogeneity and small sample sizes in some trials limit the robustness of conclusions, requiring cautious interpretation.
