The synergistic effect of herbal medicine and probiotics in pediatric functional constipation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric functional constipation (PFC) is a prevalent and persistent gastrointestinal disorder, that requires various treatments, including alternative approaches. This review assessed the synergistic efficacy of herbal medicine (HM) and probiotics for PFC. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of 11 databases, including English, Chinese, and Korean databases, until June 29, 2023. The inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the intervention of HM with probiotics to that of the same probiotics. Statistical analyses included calculation of the mean difference (MD), standardized MD, risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI), and assessment of risk of bias using Review Manager Version 5.4 software. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation rating system was used to evaluate evidence quality. Potential publication bias was assessed using funnel plots, Egger test, the fail-safe N test, and Duval and Tweedie trim and fill method. RESULTS: A total of 22 RCTs involving 2228 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The HM and probiotics group exhibited superior outcomes compared to the probiotics alone group in various parameters: total effective rate (RR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.19-1.29, P < .001), Bristol fecal Score (MD: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.71-0.89, P < .001), gastrointestinal peptide hormone (motilin) (MD: 35.37, 95% CI: 24.64-64.10, P < .001), inflammation indicator (nitrous oxide) (MD: -12.45, 95% CI: -15.12 to -9.77, P < .001), minimal sensitive volume of the rectum (MD: -8.7, 95% CI: -10.91 to -6.49, P < .001), and recurrence rate (RR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.21-0.43, P < .001). CONCLUSION: The combination of HM and probiotics may exhibit a synergistic effect on PFC. Nevertheless, it is imperative to undertake rigorously planned RCTs to comprehensively evaluate the synergistic efficacy of HM and probiotics.

Integrative treatment of herbal medicine with western medicine on coronary artery lesions in children with Kawasaki disease.

BACKGROUND: Kawasaki disease (KD) is a major cause of coronary artery lesions (CALs) in children. Approximately 10% to 20% of children treated with intravenous immunoglobulin are intravenous immunoglobulin-resistant. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of adding herbal medicine to conventional western medicines versus conventional western medicines alone for CALs in children with KD. METHODS: This study searched 9 electronic databases until August 31, 2021. The inclusion criteria were the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the CALs in children with KD and compared integrative treatment with conventional western treatments. Two authors searched independently for RCTs, including eligible articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was conducted using Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager 5.4 software. The effect size was presented as the risk ratio (RR), and the fixed-effect models were used to pool the results. RESULTS: The finally selected 12 studies included a total of 1030 KD patients. According to a meta-analysis, the integrative treatment showed better results than the conventional treatment in the CAL prevalence rate (RR = 2.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.49-2.71; P < .00001), CAL recovery rate (RR = 1.27; 95% CI, 1.05-1.54; P = .02), and total effective rate (RR = 1.17; 95% CI, 1.11-1.23; P < .00001). Only 2 studies referred to the safety of the treatment. The asymmetrical funnel plot of the CAL prevalence rate indicated the possibility of potential publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: This review found the integrative treatment to be more effective in reducing the CAL prevalence rate and increasing the CAL recovery rate and total effective rate in KD patients than conventional western treatment. However, additional well-designed RCTs will be needed further to compensate restrictions of insufficient trials on safety, methodological quality, and publication bias.