Chinese Herbal Medicine and Depression: The Research Evidence
Table 3
Summary of results and supporting evidence (based on meta-analyses).
Outcome
Intervention
Control
Result (95% CI)
Evidence (participants)
Quality* (comments)
HAM-D score
Chinese herbs + ADs
ADs alone
WMD −2.39 [−2.96, −1.83]
7 RCTs (576)
Low (trials unclear/high risk of bias, varied herbs)
WMD −3.56 [−5.09, −2.03]
6 RCTs (506)
Low (trials low quality, heterogeneity)
WMD −0.51 [−0.71, −0.31]
14 RCTs (921)
Low (trials unclear/high risk of bias, heterogeneity)
OR** 1.75 [1.26, 2.44]
8 RCTs (648)
Low/moderate (varied diagnoses)
Chinese herbs
ADs
WMD −3.09 [−5.13, −1.06]
2 RCTs (164)
Low (trials high risk of bias, heterogeneity)
WMD 0.43 [−2.14, 2.99]
3 RCTs (NR)
Low (trials unclear/high risk of bias, publication bias)
OR** 1.09 [0.60, 1.98]
4 RCTs (250)
Low/moderate (varied diagnoses)
TESS score
Chinese herbs
Placebo
OR** 9.40 [5.57, 15.89]
3 RCTs (321)
Low (heterogeneity)
Chinese herbs/ADs
ADs alone
WMD −2.51 [−3.18, −1.84]
4 RCTs (263)
Low (heterogeneity)
Chinese herbs
ADs
WMD −1.86 [−2.57, −1.15]
1 RCT (60)
Very low (single trial, high risk of bias)
TESS: Treatment emergent symptoms and side effects; NR: not reported; *Overall quality of the evidence was assessed based on reported quality/potential bias in RCTs, heterogeneity, publication bias, consistency of interventions and diagnoses. **Odds ratios were based on a decrease of at least 50% in HAM-D scores.
