Skip to main content
. 2022 Jul 14;16:933290. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2022.933290

TABLE 1.

Basic characteristics of included articles.

References Language Country Diagnostic criteria Psychological disorders Number of research centers Sample size (T:C) Sex ratio (male: female) Durations Follow-up Outcomes Adverse events (T:C)
CHM vs. placebo
Zhao and Gan, 2005 English China Rome III HAMD > 20; HAMA > 14 1 43 (30:13) 43 (16:27) 8 weeks NR ①②③④ 0
Du et al., 2014 English China Rome III Depression 1 180 (90:90) NR 8 weeks 6 months ①③⑤ 0
Tominaga et al., 2018 English Japan Rome III HADS < 10 56 118 (61:57) 125 (36:89) 8 weeks NR ①②③ 4 (3:1)
Chen et al., 2020 English China Rome III HAMD > 20; HAMA > 14 9 141 (70:71) 141 (107:3) 4 weeks 4 weeks ②③④ 4 (3:1)
Zhu and Gu’s (2017) Chinese China Rome III Mild to moderate depression on the HAMD-17 1 80 (48:32) 80 (37:43) 6 weeks NR ②③ 15 (8:7)
CHM vs. mosapride/domperidone + deanxit
Han and Wang, 2011 Chinese China Rome III HAMD ≥ 17 1 60 (30:30) 60 (20:40) 4 weeks NR ①③ NR
Lu and Chen, 2011 Chinese China Rome III HAMA > 7; HAMD > 7 1 55 (31:24) 55 (19:36) 4 weeks NR ①③④ NR
Xi et al., 2014 Chinese China Rome III HAMD ≥ 8 1 96 (48:48) 96 (39:57) 30 days 6 months ①③⑤ 0
Zhang, 2014 Chinese China Rome III HAMD ≥ 7 1 70 (35:35) 70 (29:41) 30 days 3 months ①③⑤ 3 (0:3)
Zhang et al., 2016, 2017a,b,c Chinese China Rome III HAMD > 20; HAMA > 14 1 119 (60:59) 119 (49:70) 4 weeks NR ①③④ Incomplete information
Li et al., 2018 Chinese China Rome III HAMD ≥ 20; HAMA ≥ 14 1 80 (40:40) 80 (34:46) 4 weeks NR ①③④⑤ 0

T, treatment group; C, control group; NR, not report. ① Total efficiency, ② total symptom score, ③ depression scale, ④ HAMA score, and ⑤ gastric emptying rate.