Skip to main content

Efficacy of traditional Chinese Medicine-based biological extracts in the treatment of oral lichen planus

Journal
Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology (Q1)
Published
15 July 2026
Study design
Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
Evidence level
Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
Authors
Xiangyu Chen, Lekai Wang, Chaojun Xu, Caiyan Gu, Caohui He, Lu Sun, et al.
PMID
42528672
DOI
10.3389/fcimb.2026.1746366

Why clinicians should know about it

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Our network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of traditional Chinese Medicine(TCM)-based biological extracts treatment for patients with oral lichen planus (OLP). METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase and Web of Science was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of TCM-based biological extracts in treating OLP. A network meta-analysis was then performed on the eligible trials, and the TCM-based biological extracts were ranked based on their effectiveness in OLP treatment using the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) scores. RESULTS: In total, 22 articles were included in the meta-analysis. Direct comparisons showed that TCM-based biological extracts treatment significantly reduced visual analog scale (VAS) scores in OLP patients with an MD of -0.86 (95% CI: -1.36 to -0.37, P < 0.01). Network meta-analysis shows chamomile, curcumin, echinacea, and honey were effective in reducing clinical scores. Meanwhile, chamomile, echinacea, and honey were significant in reducing VAS scores. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides strong evidence for the efficacy of TCM-based biological extracts in the treatment of OLP through network meta-analysis, and in particular, TCM-based biological extracts such as echinacea and honey demonstrated significant advantages in relieving pain and improving clinical symptoms.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.