Table 3.
Prospective studies on traditional Chinese medicine for symptomatic GERD
| Author | Study design | Subject | Intervention | Follow-up duration | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zhang etal. (2021) [63] | RCT | 204 GERD patients | Jianpi Qinghua granule + half-dose omeprazole (n = 98) vs omeprazole (n = 98) | 4 weeks | Jianpi Qinghua granule increased complete resolution rate* |
| Shih etal. (2019) [61] | RCT | 90 GERD patients | Wu chu yu tang (n = 40) vs omeprazole (n = 37) | 4 weeks | No difference in Reflux Disease Questionnaire and GERDQ was observed |
| Li etal. (2011) [60] | RCT | 120 non-erosive reflux diseasepatients | Tongjiang Granule (n = 57) vs mosapride citrate (n = 55) | 4 weeks | Tongjiang Granule increased effective rate** |
| Li etal. (2021) [62] | RCT | 288 GERD patients | Modified Xiaochaihu decoction (n = 39) vs omeprazole (n = 41) | 4 weeks | Similar symptom control (GERDQ) but improvement of esophageal motility (LESP, the percentage of IEM) on modifiedXiaochaihu decoction was observed |
| Li etal. (2022) [64] | RCT | 128 non-erosive reflux diseasepatients | Hewei Jiangni Decoction (n = 56) vs omeprazole (n = 53) | 8 weeks | Similar efficacy (GERDQ and patient-reported outcomes) was observed |
| Meng etal. (2016) [73] | RCT | 20 refractory GERD patients | ESO vs ESO + TEA vs ESO + sham TEA vs ESO + domperidone (n = 5, each group) | 4 weeks | A significant increase in LESP and reductionin weak acid reflux was only observed in ESO + TEA group |
| Hu etal. (2020) [74] | RCT | 30 GERD patients | TEA (n = 15) vs sham TEA (n = 15) | 30 min | Overall improvement of gastrointestinal symptoms (postprandial fullness and belching) on TEA was observed |
| Zhang etal. (2021) [75] | RCT | 30 GERD patients with IEM | TEA (n = 15) vs sham TEA (n = 15) | 4 weeks | Overall improvement of gastrointestinal symptoms (postprandial fullness and belching) and esophageal motility (LESP and distal contractile integral) on TEA was observed |
| Liu etal. (2019) [76] | RCT | 60 GERD patients | STEA (n = 45) vs sham TEA (n = 15) | 30 min | Improvement of esophageal motility (LESP and the percentage of IEM) and vagal activity (HF, LF, and LF/HF) on STEA was observed |
| Yu etal. (2019) [77] | RCT | 21 refractory GERD patients | TEA + diaphragmatic breathing therapy + ESO vs sham TEA + diaphragmaticbreathing therapy + ESO vs ESO (n = 7, each group) | 4 weeks | Improvement in reflux symptoms, LESP, and vagal activity (LF/LF + HF; HF/LF + HF) on TEA + diaphragmatic breathingtherapy + ESO was observed |
ESO, esomeprazole; GERD, gastroesophageal reflux disease; GERDQ, GERD questionnaire; HF, high-frequency; IEM, ineffective esophageal motility; LESP, lower esophageal sphincter pressure; LF, low-frequency; RCT, randomized–controlled trial; STEA, transcutaneous electrical acustimulation in synchronization with inspiration; TEA, transcutaneous electrical acustimulation; +, plus.
*
P < 0.05;
**
P ≤ 0.01.