Skip to main content

Table 2 Characteristics of included randomized controlled trials

From: Efficacy and safety of Si-Jun-Zi-Tang-based therapies for functional (non-ulcer) dyspepsia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Author (Ref.) Diagnostic
criteria
Sample size Age range, mean (years) Sex (Male/female)
Trial group Control group Trial group Control group Trial group Control group
Hu (2001) [32] Clinical diagnosis and negative investigations 49 36 18–70, 43.5 19.5–69, 42.5 19/30 14/22
Cao (2008) [33] Clinical diagnosis 49 36 18–70, 43.5 19–69, 42.5 19/30 14/22
Li (2008) [34] Rome II criteria, TCM diagnostic criteria and negative investigations 45 45 23–68, 39.7 21–65, 43.4 12/33 15/30
Deng and Su (2010)a [31] Rome III criteria 142 142 19–73, 45.8 19–69, 44.9 50/92 53/89
Deng and Su (2010)b [31] Rome III criteria 140 142 18–75, 46.7 19–69, 44.9 51/89 53/89
Mu, (2012) [35] Rome III criteria and negative investigations 63 62 18–60, 34.0 18–60, 35.0 28/35 29/33
Zhang, (2013) [36] Rome III criteria and negative investigations 60 60 NM, 51.5 NM, 52.8 32/28 35/25
Lv, (2014) [37] Rome III criteria, TCM diagnostic criteria and negative investigations 41 20 20–68, 47.2 20–68, 45.5 17/24 9/11
Zhang, (2014) [38] Rome III criteria, TCM diagnostic criteria and negative investigations 29 28 29–63, 50.1 25–64, 47.4 14/15 14/14
Lan and Yuan, (2016) [39] Clinical diagnosis 33 33 22–69, 50.5 21–69, 49.2 18/15 17/16
Liu et al., (2016) [40] Rome III criteria, TCM diagnostic criteria and negative investigations 30 30 NM, 45.8 NM, 44.2 13/17 14/16
Li, (2016) [41] Rome III criteria 34 34 18–59, 37.2 22–58, 37.6 15/19 16/18
  1. NM not mentioned
  2. a high dosage; b low dosage