Table 1.
Basic characteristics of the included studies.
| Study | Year | Sample size (T/C) | Mean age (years, ) | Interventions | Treatment (weeks) | Ending indicators | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T | C | T | C | |||||
| Cong [11] | 2020 | 72 (36/36) | NA | NA | Yangxin decoction | Deanxit | 4 | ①②③ |
| Ding [12] | 2020 | 60 (30/30) | 52.43 ± 7.74 | 54.76 ± 9.20 | Baihetiaolv decoction | Deanxit | 4 | ①② |
| Lu [13] | 2019 | 79 (38/41) | 64.13 ± 6.72 | 63.12 ± 7.55 | Jieyushugantongmai decoction | Deanxit | 2 | ③④ |
| Qi [14] | 2017 | 90 (45/45) | 51 ± 9.4 | 54 ± 10.6 | Jieyutongmai granules | Deanxit | 2 | ② |
| Liang [15] | 2015 | 300 (149/151) | 76 ± 4 | 77 ± 5 | Shuganjieyu decoction | Deanxit | 6 | ①④ |
| Ye et al. [16] | 2012 | 78 (39/39) | 67.0 ± 8.0 | 68.0 ± 7.0 | Shuganjieyu capsules | Paroxetine | 6 | ①②③④ |
| Liu et al. [17] | 2019 | 80 (40/40) | 48.45 ± 10.35 | 48.22 ± 11.23 | Yuzheng decoction | Deanxit | 2 | ①④ |
| Liu [18] | 2015 | 183 (92/91) | NA | NA | Yuzheng decoction | Deanxit | 8 | ① |
| Wang [19] | 2016 | 60 (30/30) | NA | NA | Chaihushugan decoction | Deanxit | 14 | ③ |
| Rong [20] | 2020 | 60 (30/30) | 55.10 ± 7.59 | 56.47 ± 6.32 | Chaihuwendan decoction | Deanxit | 4 | ①② |
| Zhang [21] | 2020 | 60 (30/30) | 57.86 ± 8.07 | 57.31 ± 7.63 | Chaiguilongmu decoction | Deanxit | 4 | ①②④ |
| Zhao [22] | 2018 | 64 (32/32) | 60.22 ± 5.96 | 56.88 ± 7.25 | Shuganjieyutongmai decoction | Escitalopram | 16 | ①③⑤ |
| Shi [23] | 2016 | 68 (34/34) | 58.55 ± 1.52 | Jieyutongmai decoction | Escitalopram | 8 | ③④⑤ | |
| Sun [24] | 2012 | 60 (30/30) | 58.2 | 56.1 | Jieyutongbi decoction | Escitalopram | 6 | ③④ |
Notes: T, intervention groups; C, control groups; NA, did not mention; ① efficacy of TCM evidence; ② HAMA pre- and posttreatment score reduction efficiency; ③ HAMD pre- and posttreatment score reduction efficiency; ④ incidence of adverse events; and ⑤ SAQ.