Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Volume 2019 (2019), Article ID 4893876, 11 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4893876

Review Article

Clinical Effects and Safety of Tongxieyaofang on Diarrhea Predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trails

Yuhong Zhou,1,2 Shutang Han,² and Yamin He³

¹Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210023, China
²Department of Digestive endoscopy, Jiangsu Province Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210029, China
³Department of Pathology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200001, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Shutang Han; shutanghanhst@163.com

Received 28 September 2018; Accepted 19 December 2018; Published 6 January 2019

Academic Editor: I-Min Liu

Copyright © 2019 Yuhong Zhou et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

Background. Tongxieyaofang (TXYF), a prescription originated from traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), has been widely used on treating Diarrhea Predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS-D). The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate whether TXYF was effective and safe for IBS-D. Methods. We searched seven electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, CNKI, VIP, CBM, and Wanfang Data up to 26 July 2017. Randomized controlled trails (RCTs) were eligible, regardless of blinding. Risk of bias of included trials was evaluated according to the Cochrane Handbook. Results. The total number of participants analyzed in the meta-analysis was 3062, of which 1556 received TXYF, while 1506 received ordinary treatment. The primary outcome was clinical effective rate. Compared with conventional medication which included probiotics, pinaverium bromide, trimebutine, and Oryzanol, TXYF significantly improved the clinical effective rate (n=37, OR: 4.61; 95% CI: 3.67–5.78; P < 0.00001) and decreased the adverse events (n=10, OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.08–0.86; P = 0.03). There was not significant association with the score of abdominal pain, defecating frequency, fecal property, and total symptom. Conclusions. We suggested a moderate recommendation for TXYF on IBS-D, due to the fact that the risk of bias of the finally included trails was not high. Considering that all identified studies were not of high qualities and large samples, further rigorously designed and large scale RCTs were necessary to improve the applicability of our study results.

1. Introduction

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic and sometimes disabling functional bowel disorder [1]. Worldwide, IBS negatively affects the quality of life and burdens the medical cost. The prevalence of IBS in China is between 6.53% to 15.02% [2, 3]. Rome diagnostic criteria and recommendations are commonly used in the design and performance of clinical researches in the field of IBS. Rome IV criteria, the current criteria for IBS, show that the diagnosis of IBS is abdominal pain at least 1 day per week during the last 3 months [4, 5]. The abdominal pain is associated with at least 2 of the following, defecation, change in stool frequency, and change in stool form [5]. On the basis of Rome IV criteria, IBS is divided into four subtypes based on symptoms, including IBS with prominent diarrhea (IBS-D), IBS with constipation (IBS-C), IBS with mixed symptoms of diarrhea and constipation (IBS-M), and untyped IBS (IBS-U) [5]. Traditionally, the pathogenesis of IBS was conceptualized as a brain-gut disorder because of its high association with central nervous system (CNS) alterations especially anxiety and depression [1]. Environmental factors including early life stressors, food intolerance, antibiotics, or enteric infection and host factors including altered pain perception, altered brain-gut interaction, dysbiosis, increased intestinal permeability, increased gut mucosal immune activation, or visceral hypersensitivity both contribute to IBS symptoms [6]. Due to the heterogeneity of IBS, it is difficult to design an algorithm to fit all patients [1]. Antidiarrheals, serotonin agents, and antispasmodics are often used as first-line or second-line agents in patients with IBS-D [6]. Medical treatments for IBS-C include fiber supplements, laxative agents, and prosecretory agents [6].

In China, Tongxieyaofang (TXYF) has been used in treating diarrhea for hundreds years. A system review (n=1125) shows that the effectiveness of TXYF is higher than the conventional medicine (risk ratio 1.35, 95% CI 1.21-1.50) in the management of IBS [7]. Therefore, our research is performed to investigate whether TXYF is effective and safe on the management of IBS-D.

2. Methods

2.1. Research Protocol

This meta-analysis was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The protocol for this meta-analysis is available in PROSPERO (CRD42018105307).

2.2. Databases and Search Strategies

We searched seven electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, CNKI, VIP, CBM, and Wanfang Data up to 26 July 2017. The keywords were as follows (IBS-D or IBS-D∗) for IBS-D AND (tongxieyaofang or tongxieyaofang∗) for TXYF AND randomized or controlled or clinical research.

2.3. Eligibility Criteria

Studies were selected based on the following inclusion criteria: (a) any RCTs compared TXYF with ordinary treatment group or placebo, regardless of blinding; (b) no restriction on age, sex, country, or underlying diseases of participants; (c) trails provided records based on “the guiding principle of clinical research on new drugs of TCM” and/or “the diagnostic criteria of TCM syndrome”; (d) trails provided Rome diagnostic criteria.

2.4. Risk of Bias Assessment

According to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (version 5.0.2), two independent researchers (Y. H. Zhou and S. T. Han) assessed the included trails independently in seven domains, included the randomization sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other biases. The included trials were graded as low quality, high quality, or moderate quality based on the following criteria: (a) trails with either randomization or allocation concealment assessed as a high risk of bias were considered low quality; (b) trials with both randomization and allocation concealment assessed as a low risk and all other items assessed as low or unclear risk of bias were considered high quality; (c) trials were considered moderate quality if they did not meet criteria for high or low risk.

2.5. Study Selection and Data Extraction

Two researchers (Y. H. Zhou and S. T. Han) independently screened the titles and abstracts of the included trails and confirmed whether the trails meet the inclusion criteria. Two researchers above independently extracted the following information from each trail: the first author, year of publication, country of origin, sample size, participants (mean age and IBS-D duration), details of control inventions, treatment duration, and outcome measurements.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Heterogeneity was evaluated by chi-square test. We performed meta-analysis to calculate risk ratios (RRs), absolute risk differences (ARDs), and 95% CIs using the Mantel-Haenszel statistical method. A random-effects model was used to pool the data, and statistical heterogeneity between summary data was evaluated using the I² statistic. Statistical significant difference was considered as p-value < 0.5.

3. Results

3.1. Studies Retrieved and Characteristics

992 articles through electronic searching were identified. After duplications removed, 331 records were screened through titles and abstracts. Finally, 39 studies which met the inclusion criteria were included in this meta-analysis (Figure 1).

Figure 1

All trails are originated from China and published from 2006 to 2017 [8–46]. The total number of participants analyzed in the meta-analysis was 3062, of which 1556 received TXYF, while 1506 received ordinary treatment (Table 1).

Table 1: The baseline characteristics of included trails.

Author
Year
Sample Size (I/C)
Control Group
Age (years)
IBS-D Duration
Intervention
Outcome Measurements

(I/C)
(I/C)
Duration

L.F. An
2017
32/32
Dioctahedral smectite+pinaverium bromide
34.8±3.8/34.2±3.6
3.06±0.34/2.97±0.32y
4w
①+②+③+④

X.Y. Cao
2015
46/46
Pinaverium bromide+oryzanol
18-56/16-58
2.5/2.2y
1m
①+⑦

Y.L. Chen
2014
35/35
Pinaverium bromide
40.23±14.85/38.57±12.49
NR
1m
①+⑤

Y.X. Chen
2014
30/30
Trimebutine+Bifid Triple Viable Capsules
43.1±10.2
NR
4w
①+②+④

Z.J. Chen
2012
30/30
Trimebutine
32.0±1.7/31.0±5.9
2.6±0.65/2.5±0.77y
30d
①+⑤+⑥

H. Dong
2012
60/60
Pinaverium bromide
26-57/28-53
2-11/1.5-10y
4w
①+②+③+④+⑦

P. Fang
2008
40/40
Pinaverium bromide+Bifid Triple Viable Capsules
41/42
3m-6y/2m-5y
1m
⑥

Y.C. Gong
2011
30/26
Bifidobacterium tetra viable tablets
33.3±12.3/32.6±11.1
3.3/3.8y
4w
①

L. He
2012
36/30
Bacillus subtilis and Enterococcus bacteria capsule
18-64/18-62
1.2-6/1.5-6y
4w
①

L.J. Hu
2014
50/50
Bifid Triple Viable Capsules
40.3±11.23/45.4±13.29
6m-8y/6m-7y
4w
①

X.G. Hu
2012
35/35
Pinaverium bromide
NR
NR
28d
①+②+④

C.Y. Hua
2013
80/80
Pinaverium bromide
17-27
NR
10d
①+⑥

J.H. Ji
2015
34/32
Montmorillonite+Bacillus subtilis and Enterococcus bacteria capsule
33.2±12.6/32.8±11.0
3.4±1.1/3.5±1.2y
5w
①

Y. Lai
2016
38/32
Bifid Triple Viable Capsules
67.4±13.6/64.5±12.8
3.9±1.5/3.8±1.6
8w
①+②+③+④

A.L. Li
2014
108/100
Combined Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus Tablets
18-65
NR
8w
①

J.Y. Li
2012
23/22
Pinaverium bromide
42.56±10.71/41.38±11.25
15.72±10.35/15.48±10.52m
2w
①+⑤

G. Liang
2006
43/41
Pinaverium bromide
36.20±3.15/37.11±2.05
3.54±1.25/3.62±1.24y
4w
①

D.X. Liu
2012
59/56
Pinaverium bromide
45/44
1-6y/7m-7y
4w
①

F.X. Liu
2011
42/40
Loperamide
42±12/42±13
1-10/1-11y
4w
①+②+③+④+⑥

L. Liu
2011
24/22
Pinaverium bromide
43.55±13.79/38.70±10.76
6.30±5.52/5.61±5.51y
4w
①+⑤+⑥

C.Q. Lu
2014
34/34
Otilonium bromide
38.0/37.5
4.3/4.6y
4w
①+⑤

D.Y. Ma
2016
23/23
Pinaverium bromide
40/39
NR
4w
①+②+④+⑥

S.L. Peng
2013
34/33
Pinaverium bromide
40.3±11.9
NR
8w
①+②+④+⑤+⑥

L.S. Su
2015
31/31
Pinaverium bromide
35.6±3.4/34.5±3.7
2.9±1.2/2.7±1.5y
2w
①

H.F. Wang
2012
45/45
Dioctahedral smectite
45.2±12.5/43.2±11.7
35.5±12.3/36.7±13.5m
4w
①+⑥

H.Y. Wang
2015
30/30
Trimebutine+Bifid Triple Viable Capsules
41.4±11/42.5±10.6
NR
4w
①

Y.X. Wang
2013
48/50
Pinaverium bromide
27±4.5/29±5.1
3±2.7/3.3±2.4y
1m
①+⑦

Y.Y. Wang
2015
30/30
Pinaverium bromide+Bifid Triple Viable Capsules
46.8/48.9
3.7/3.4y
4w
②+④

C.C. Wang
2015
35/35
NR
40.56±15.02/39.54±13.23
6.80±4.30/8.20±4.69m
4w
①+⑤

P.Y. Wen
2014
42/42
Pinaverium bromide
41.7±11.6/42.4±12.3
36±12.5/37±13.1m
4w
①

J.Y. Wu
2011
30/30
Trimebutine+Bifid Triple Viable Capsules +Vitamin K
40.3±11.23/45.4±13.29
14m-8y/12m-7y
4w
①

Y.N. Wu
2008
55/55
Pinaverium bromide
18-60/16-61
1-30/1-28y
6w
①

J.J. Xu
2012
44/40
Pinaverium bromide
41.8±6.80/43.5±7.3
3.5/4.1y
28d
①+②+③+④+⑤

H.T. Yu
2007
30/30
Bifidobiogen
35.6/36.7
3.7/3.6y
30d
①

F. Zhang
2011
30/30
Dioctahedral smectite
18-69/19-68
1-24/2-23y
4w
①

X.L. Zhang
2017
30/30
Pinaverium bromide
36.7±9.5/36.1±8.2
4.2±1.1/4.5±1.4y
1m
①+⑥

X.D. Zhang
2011
30/30
Oryzanol+Dioctahedral smectite
NR
NR
4w
①

Z.H. Zhou
2010
37/30
Trimebutine
36.2/38.3
4.2/5.5y
14d
①

B.F. Zhuo
2017
43/39
Bifidobacterium tetra viable tablets+Pinaverium bromide
36.3±13.1/35.2±14.3
7.7±5.1/7.4±5.3y
8w
①+②+③+④+⑥

y, year; m, month; w, week; d, day; NR, not reported.

Note: ①the clinical effective rate, ②the score of abdominal pain, ③the score of defecating frequency, ④the score of fecal property, ⑤the score of total symptom, ⑥the adverse effect rate, and ⑦the recurrence rate.

3.2. Clinical Effectiveness Rate

37 trials reported data on the clinical effectiveness rate. As shown in Figure 2, there was no significant heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, P = 0.96). A random-effects model showed a significant improvement in the clinical effective rate (OR: 4.61; 95% CI: 3.67–5.78; P < 0.00001).

Figure 2

3.3. Abdominal Pain Score

11 trails reported abdominal pain score. Trails were divided into two subgroups based on intervention duration (4w/8w). There was significant heterogeneity in test for overall and subgroup (Figure 3).

Figure 3

3.4. Defecating Frequency Score

6 trails reported defecating frequency score. As shown in Figure 4, there was significant heterogeneity (I² = 77%, P = 0.0005).

Figure 4

3.5. Fecal Property Score

11 trails reported fecal property score. Trails were divided into two subgroups based on intervention duration (4w/8w). There was significant heterogeneity in test for overall and subgroup (Figure 5).

Figure 5

3.6. Total Symptom Score

8 trails reported defecating frequency score. As shown in Figure 6, there was significant heterogeneity (I² = 87%, P < 0.00001).

Figure 6

3.7. Adverse Effect Rate

10 trails were involved. Figure 7 showed that there was significant association with adverse effect rate (I² = 0%, P = 0.43; OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.08–0.86; P = 0.03).

Figure 7

3.8. Recurrence Rate

3 trails were involved. As shown in Figure 8, there was significant heterogeneity (I² = 65%, P = 0.06).

Figure 8

3.9. Assessing Risk of Bias of Included Studies

11 trails were graded as low quality due to inappropriate randomization and/or allocation concealment. 9 trails were graded as high quality.

The risk of bias was moderate, shown in Figures 9 and 10 (+ indicated low risk of bias, - indicated high risk of bias, and ? indicated unclear risk of bias). 9 studies were given a low risk of random sequence generation due to the description the method of randomization namely random numbers table. Although double-blinded was not actualized in any trail included, the risk of blinding of participants and personnel and blinding of outcome assessment was low. Because, after discussion, we agreed that lack of blinding would not interfere the results seriously. Not any study included reported participants dropped out from any groups. So they were all assessed as low risk of bias of incomplete outcome data. All studies measured every anticipated outcome related to IBS-D mentioned before, so low risk of bias of selective outcome reporting was given to each study. The number of trials with low quality, high quality, and moderate quality was 9, 19, and 19, respectively. So we consider that the quality of identified studies was not high.

Figure 9

Figure 10

4. Discussion

To our knowledge, this was the first meta-analysis which critically evaluated the efficacy and safety of TXYF for IBS-D in English. The results in our study showed that, compared to conventional medication, TXYF appeared to be more effective in reducing adverse events rate (n=10, OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.08–0.86; P = 0.03) and improving the clinical effective rate (n=37, OR: 4.61; 95% CI: 3.67–5.78; P < 0.00001). There was not significant association with the score of abdominal pain, defecating frequency, fecal property, and total symptom comparing TXYF with conventional medicine. Probably, that was blamed to different evaluation criteria which were taken on clinical effectiveness and symptom score.

Conventional medication in our study, the positive control group, included probiotics, pinaverium bromide, trimebutine, and Oryzanol. The pathophysiology of TYXF treating IBS-D was not even understood. MiRNAs played a pivotal role in visceral hypersensitivity and might be targets in the treatment of IBS by Tongxieyaofang [47]. TXYF attenuated postinfectious IBS symptom by attenuating behavioral hyperalgesia and antidiarrhea, mediated by inhibiting PAR-2 receptor expression, reducing the levels of SP, TNF-α, and IL-6 in colonic mucosa, and decreasing fecal serine protease activity[48].

Traditional Chinese medicine was widely used as alternative and complementary medicine in China, Japan, and Korea. However, we could not find any studies originated from Japan or Korea from these databases mentioned above. All studies included were published in Chinese journals and conducted in China. It may be due to the authors of our study who all came from China.

In the inclusion criteria, we did not put any limits on TXYF combined with any other formulas or not, because TXYF and other formulas were part of TCM. Combination would not bring any risk of bias.

However, we should admit that several limitations concerning this study largely pertain to the incompleteness of the reported evidence. Firstly and foremost, the sample sizes of RCTs included were small and limited. Studies with small sample size, including publication bias, distorted the estimation of the effectiveness of an intervention under scrutiny in our review. It was difficult to find out the influence of contingency factors and increased the risk of bias. Secondly, the inadequate reporting on random sequence generation and none of the included trials which reported allocation concealment induced the selection bias occurring in the methodological designs of included studies, although our review processes were appraised rigorously by two experienced and independent authors. Thirdly, all trials included did not report double-blinding method, because we did not put any limits on types of intervention, so after discussion we agreed that lack of blinding would not bring the risk of bias and interfere in the results seriously. However, this opinion was conflicted with other meta-analyses [7].

Because the risk of bias of the finally included trails was not high, we suggested a moderate recommendation for TXYF on IBS-D. Considering that all identified studies were not high quality and large samples, further rigorously designed and large scale RCTs were necessary to improve the applicability of our study results.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

H. Zhou and S. T. Han designed this study, interpreted the results, extracted data, made the literature research, performed the statistical analysis, and revised the manuscript. Y. M. He drafted the manuscript and evaluated the quality of the included study.

References

A. C. Ford, B. E. Lacy, and N. J. Talley, “Irritable bowel syndrome,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 376, no. 26, pp. 2566–2578, 2017.

H. B. Yu, L. Dai, L. Zhou et al., “An epidemiologic study of irritable bowel syndrome among officers and soilders in a Chinese air force,” Chinese Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 1393–1396, 2015.

C.-B. Liu, G. Liang, Q.-F. Zheng et al., “Prevalence of and risk factors for irritable bowel syndrome in community residents in nanning,” World Chinese Journal of Digestology, vol. 22, no. 34, pp. 5365–5370, 2014.

M. Pimentel, “Evidence-based management of irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea,” American Journal of Managed Care, vol. 24, 2018.

B. E. Lacy, F. Mearin, L. Chang et al., “Bowel disorders,” Gastroenterology, vol. 150, no. 6, pp. 1393.e5–1407.e5, 2016.

W. D. Chey, J. Kurlander, and S. Eswaran, “Irritable bowel syndrome: a clinical review,” The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 313, no. 9, pp. 949–958, 2015.

Z. Bian, T. Wu, L. Liu et al., “Effectiveness of the Chinese herbal formula TongXieYaoFang for irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review,” The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 401–407, 2006.

A. L. Li, “Clinical observation, on Treating 108 cases of diarrhea predominant irritable bowel syndrome with Jiawei Tong Xie Yao Fang,” Hunan Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 9-10, 2014.

B. F. Zhuo, “Effect of Tong Xie Fang Fang and Four Gentlemen Decoction on immune function in patients with diarrhea predominant irritable bowel syndrome,” Guangdong Medical Journal, vol. 38, no. 23, pp. 3669–3671, 2017.

C. C. Wang, “35 cases of irritable bowel syndrome (diarrhea type) treated by Tong Xie Yao Fang and Four Gentlemen Decoction,” Clinical Journal of Chinese Medicine, vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 52–55, 2015.

C. Q. Lu, “Clinical observation, on Treating 34 cases of diarrhea predominant irritable bowel syndrome with Tong Xie Yao Fang,” Jiangsu Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 53-54, 2014.

C. Y. Hua, “A randomized parallel controlled study on treating diarrhea predominant irritable bowel syndrome with modified Tong Xie Yao Fang,” Journal of Practical Traditional Chinese Internal Medicine, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 10-11, 2013.

D. X. Liu, “Clinical study on treatment of diarrhea predominant irritable bowel syndrome with Tong Xie Fang Fang and four negative powder,” China Journal of Chinese Medicine, vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 1341-1342, 2012.

D. Y. Ma, “Clinical observation, on four cases of diarrhea and irritable bowel syndrome treated by modified Wei Xie San and Tong Xie Yao Fang,” Shanxi Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 16-17, 2016.

F. Zhang, “Clinical observation on treating diarrhea predominant irritable bowel syndrome with Tong Xie Yao Fang,” Shanxi Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 27, no. 4, p. 16, 2011.

F. X. Liu, “Xiaoyao San and Tong Xie Yao Fang in treating diarrhea predominant irritable bowel syndrome: a report of 42 cases,” Guangming TCM, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 518-519, 2011.

G. Liang, “Clinical observation on treating diarrhea predominant irritable bowel syndrome with Tong Xie Yao Fang plus Shen Ling Baizhu powder,” Guangxi Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 15-16, 2006.

H. Dong, “Treatment of 60 cases of diarrhea predominant irritable bowel syndrome with stagnation of liver qi and spleen deficiency,” China Medical Technologies, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 267-268, 2012.

H. F. Wang, J. Zhang, J. Zhang, and J. Q. Wang, “45 Cases of Irritable Bowel Syndrome ( Diarrhea Type) Treated with the Modified Tongxie Yaofang,” World Journal of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine, vol. 07, no. 5, pp. 425–427, 2012.

H. T. Yu, “Modified Tongxie Yaofang in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (diarrhea type),” Journal of Changchun University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 46-47, 2007.

H. Y. Wang, “Effects of Sini Powder and Tongxie Yaofang on Serum IL-1 Beta and IL-8 Levels in Patients with Diarrhea-predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome,” China Medical Science and Technology, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 487-488, 2015.

J. H. Ji, “Decoction, Tongxie Yaofang in the treatment of diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome,” Guangming TCM, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 781-782, 2015.

J. J. Xu, “Tongxie Yaofang, Jiawei Treatment of Diarrhea-predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome,” Zhengjiang Intergration of Traditional and Western Medicine, vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 775-776, 2012.

J. Y. Li, “Clinical Observation, on Diarrhea-predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome Treated with Traditional Chinese Medicine,” Hubei Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 51-52, 2012.

J. Y. Wu, “Clinical Observation, of Modified Tongxie Yaofang in the Treatment of IBS-D,” Journal of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 412-413, 2011.

L. He, “Qiwei Baizhu, Powder and Tongxie Yaofang in the treatment of 36 cases of diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome,” Jiangxi Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 43, no. 12, pp. 24-25, 2012.

L. Liu, “Randomized Controlled Observation of Jiawei Tongxie Yaofang in the Treatment of Diarrhea-predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome,” Information on Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 106-107, 2011.

L. F. An, “Observation on, the curative effect of modified Tongxie Yaofang on diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome,” Journal of Shanxi University of TCM, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 68-69, 2017.

L. J. Hu, “Observation on, therapeutic effect of modified Tongxie Yaofang on diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome of liver depression and spleen deficiency,” Journal of New Chinese Medicine, vol. 46, no. 11, pp. 94–96, 2014.

L. S. Su, “Clinical Observation, on 31 Cases of Irritable Bowel Syndrome Differentiated by Tongxie Yaofang,” Chinese Journal of Ethnomedicine and Ethnopharmacy, vol. 11, pp. 82-83, 2015.

P. Fang, “Effect of Jiawei Tong Xie Yao Fang on irritable bowel syndrome,” Zhengjiang Intergration of Traditional and Western Medicine, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 469-470, 2008.

P. Y. Wen, “Sijunzi Decoction and Tongxie Yaofang Modified Treatment of Diarrhea-predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome (Spleen Deficiency and Liver Depression Syndrome) 42 Cases,” Fujian Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 30-31, 2014.

S. L. Peng, “Clinical study on the treatment of diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome with modified Qiwei Baizhu powder and Tongxie Yaofang,” Journal of Liaoning University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 187–189, 2013.

X. D. Zhang, “30 cases of diarrhea predominant irritable bowel syndrome treated by Tong Xie Yao Fang and Si Shen Wan,” Chinese Community Doctors, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 100, 2011.

X. G. Hu, “Xiangxiang Tongxie Yaofang and Fangfeng in the treatment of 35 cases of irritable bowel syndrome of liver depression and spleen deficiency diarrhea,” Journal of New Chinese Medicine, vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 19–21, 2012.

X. L. Zhang, “Clinical Observation of Tongxie Yaofang in Treating Irritable Bowel Syndrome (Diarrhea Type) of Liver Depression and Spleen Deficiency,” Clinical Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 1310–1312, 2017.

X. Y. Cao, “Tongxie Yaofang modified treatment of irritable bowel syndrome in 46 cases,” Chinese Natropathy, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 52–54, 2015.

Y. Lai and S.-Y. Xu, “Evaluation of clinical effects of Jiawei Tongxie Yaofang decoction in treatment of irritable bowel syndrome based on brain-intestinal axis theory,” World Chinese Journal of Digestology, vol. 24, no. 31, pp. 4288–4292, 2016.

Y. C. Gong, “Tongxie Yaofang and Sijunzi Decoction in the treatment of 30 cases of diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome,” Journal of Practical Traditional Chinese Internal Medicine, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 52–54, 2011.

Y. L. Chen, “35 cases of irritable bowel syndrome (diarrhea type) treated by Tong Xie Yao Fang and Four Gentlemen Decoction,” Forum TCM, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 39-40, 2014.

Y. N. Wu, “Clinical observation, on treating diarrhea predominant irritable bowel syndrome with Tong Xie Yao Fang,” Journal of Liaoning University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 94-95, 2008.

Y. X. Chen, “Sini Powder and Tongxie Yaofang on Serum 5-HT Expression Level in Irritable Bowel Syndrome Patients,” Lab Med Clin, vol. 11, pp. 1462-1463, 2014.

Y. X. Wang, “Clinical Observation on 48 Cases of Diarrhea-predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome with Liver Depression and Spleen Deficiency Syndrome Treated by Modified Tongxie Yaofang,” Henan Journal of TCM, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 67–69, 2013.

Y. Y. Wang, “Mica atba combined with Tongxieyaofang for diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome,” Jilin Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 43–46, 2015.

Z. H. Zhou, “Tongxie Yaofang Jiawei Zhongwan in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (diarrhea type) 67 cases,” Liaoning Journal of TCM, vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 1989-1990, 1989.

Z. J. Chen, “Tongxie Yaofang and Shenling Baizhu Powder in Treating Irritable Bowel Syndrome with Liver Depression and Spleen Deficiency Diarrhea,” Journal of Practical Traditional Chinese Internal Medicine, vol. 8, pp. 82-83, 2012.

G. Chao, Y. Wang, F. Ye, and S. Zhang, “Regulation of Colonic Mucosal MicroRNA Expression via Multiple Targets in Visceral Hypersensitivity Rats by Tongxieyaofang,” Yonsei Medical Journal, vol. 59, no. 8, p. 945, 2018.

X. Hu, X. Zhang, B. Han et al., “The inhibitory effect of tongxieyaofang on rats with post infectious irritable bowel syndrome through regulating colonic par-2 receptor,” BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2013.