Table S1. Supporting information for risk of bias assessmentAuthor (year)

Bias Authors’ judgement Support for judgement

UCKamali (2015)[1]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk Quote "Randomization was done using computer generated random numbers"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk Quote "The P.granatum and placebo syrup were packed and alphabetically labeled in the same opaque and sealed bottles"

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

Low risk Quote "Attending physician, patients, principal investigators, and data analyzer were blinded to the study arms"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

Low risk Quote "A co-investigator who was not involved in patients' recruitment or allocation or in outcome assessment was aware of the drug codes and cleared it after data analysis"

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

High risk Per-protocol analysis was performed instead of intention-to-treat analysis

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk All stated outcomes were reported completely.

Other bias Low risk Nothing specialRastegarpanah (2015)[2]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk The study used a random number table.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of allocation concealment.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

Low risk The study used a placebo control.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

Unclear risk There is no description on the blinding of outcome assessment.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

High risk The study described that data were analyzed by using ITT approach, but the actual results did not include all patients' data.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk All planned outcomes were reported in detail.

Other bias Low risk Nothing particular.Lang (2015)[3]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk “On study entry, all patients were instructed to continue their optimized mesalamine medications unchanged and were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio... Sequential one-by-one blinded randomization was performed after stratification...”

It is not clear how the random sequence was generated.Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk "All participating physicians were blinded to treatment assignment throughout the study except the clinician in charge of randomization, who did not participate in any assessment of the patients."However, there is no clear description on allocation concealment method.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

Low risk Curcumin (Cur-Cure, a 95% pure curcumin preparation) and identical placebo capsules were both purchased from Bara Herbs Inc. (Yokneam, Israel).

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

Low risk The primary end point was the percentage of patients in clinical remission at the end of the 1-month treatment, defined as SCCAI score ≤ 2. (Participants were blinded and they were outcome assessors.)

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

Low risk Analyses were based on an intention-to-treat basis.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk All planned outcomes were reported in detail.

Other bias Unclear risk This may not be a truly randomised trial because there was no description on randomisation method.

Irving (2015)[4]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of random sequence generation.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of allocation concealment.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

Low risk The study used a placebo control.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

Low risk The study used Mayo score, which consists of objective outcome (e.g., stool frequency, rectal bleeding and findings of proctosigmoidoscopy) and subjective outcome assessed by physician who was blinded in this study.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

High risk Per-protocol analysis was performed instead of intention-to-treat analysis.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk Because the study was not published as a form of full-text article, only primary outcome was reported in the text.

Other bias Unclear risk Because the study was not published as a form of full-text article, only partial information was reported.

Dryden (2013)[5]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk Quote "Patients....were randomized in a double-blinded fashion according to a random number generator...."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of allocation concealment.

Blinding of participants and Low risk The study used a placebo control.

personnel (performance bias)Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

Unclear risk There is no description of the blinding of outcome assessment.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

High risk Not all subjects were included in the analysis

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk All planned outcomes were reported in detail.

Other bias Low risk Nothing specialSandborn (2013)[6]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of random sequence generation.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk Randomization was performed centrally...

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

Low risk A placebo control was used.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

Unclear risk “Clinical response defined as a decrease from baseline in the total Mayo Score by at least 3 points and at least 30% with an accompanying decrease in rectal bleeding subscore of at least 1 point or an absolute subscore of 0 or 1 point at 2 months. ... The primary efficacy end point was clinical response at week 8.” (Participants were blinded but it is not clear whether assessing physicians were also blinded.)

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

Low risk Analyses were based on an intention-to-treat basis.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk All planned outcomes were reported in detail.

Other bias Low risk Nothing particular.Hanai (2006)[7]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk The allocation was done by using a computer-generated randomization scheme.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk The allocation was done by the clinical pharmacist.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

Low risk "All study personnel and participants were blinded to treatment assignment for the duration of the study.”

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

Low risk "All study personnel and participants were blinded to treatment assignment for the duration of the study. Only the study statisticians and the data monitoring committee could see unblinded data, but none had any contact with the study patients."

Incomplete outcome data Low risk Analyses were based on an intention-to-treat basis.

(attrition bias)Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk All planned outcomes were reported in detail.

Other bias Low risk Nothing particular.Langmead (2004)[8]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk “Those meeting the inclusion criteria were randomized by a trial pharmacist at Barts and the London NHS Trust, using a computer-generated, block-design, randomization sequence...”

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of allocation concealment.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

Low risk The placebo consisted of a liquid preparation containing flavourings, but no known active agents (synthesized by Flavex International Ltd, Hereford, UK), which was identical in taste and appearance to the aloe vera preparation.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

Low risk Blinded participants were outcome assessors.All histological grades were assessed by the same experienced histopathologist (RMF) blind to the treatment given.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

Low risk Although dropout and withdrawal rates were slightly high, all analysis was undertaken on an intention-to-treat basis using LOCF method.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk All planned outcomes were reported in detail.

Other bias Low risk Nothing particular.Ben-Arye (2002)[9]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of random sequence generation.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk Centralized randomization process.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

Low risk Matching placebo control was used.“...The placebo juice was manufactured from 0.18% normal saline with a mixture of under 0.5% weight kaolin and tragacanth, and tinted with food color (Fast Green FCF). The placebo juice was prepared in a centralized location and distributed monthly to the study coordinating centers. The placebo juice was similar to wheat grass juice in appearance, but not in taste and smell.”

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

Low risk A disease activity index (DAI) was created by combining the four most accepted measures (according to Sutherland (7)): stool frequency, rectal bleeding, sigmoidoscopic score and physician’s assessment of disease activity: gastroenterologists were blinded.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

Low risk Although the analyses were confined to the 21 patients who completed the trial, the dropout rates were not deemed to affect the outcomes.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk All planned outcomes were reported in detail.

Other bias High risk The numbers in the result table are not consistent.Greenfield (1993)[10]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of random sequence generation.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of allocation concealment.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

Unclear risk The placebo used in the study was not identical to verum in terms of weight.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

Unclear risk The participants reported the stool frequency on patient diary cards but it is not clear whether they were blinded or not.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

High risk The study did not include all patients' data in the analysis and this might have affected the outcomes.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk All planned outcomes were reported in detail.

Other bias Unclear risk This may not be a truly randomised trial because there was no description on randomisation method.

Hallert (1991)[11]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of random sequence generation.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of allocation concealment.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

Low risk The study used a placebo control.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

Unclear risk There is no description of the blinding of outcome assessment.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

Low risk Although the analyses were confined to the 29 patients who completed the trial, the dropout rates were not deemed to affect the outcomes.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk All planned outcomes were reported in detail.

Other bias Unclear risk This may not be a truly randomised trial because there was no detailed description on randomisation method.

Liu (2016)[12]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk Random number table was used.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of allocation concealment.

Blinding of participants and High risk Herbal medicine was tested as an add-on to conventional medication.

personnel (performance bias)Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

High risk Symptoms and endoscopic results were assessed by participants and physicians who are (probably) unblinded.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

Low risk There were no withdrawals and dropouts.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk All planned outcomes were reported in detail.

Other bias Low risk Nothing particular.Jia (2015)[13]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of random sequence generation.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of allocation concealment.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

High risk Herbal medicine was tested as an add-on to conventional medication.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

High risk Symptoms and endoscopic results were assessed by participants and physicians who are (probably) unblinded.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

Low risk There were no withdrawals and dropouts.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk All planned outcomes were reported in detail.

Other bias Unclear risk This may not be a truly randomised trial because there was no description on randomisation method.

Li (2015)[14] Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of random sequence generation.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of allocation concealment.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

High risk Herbal medicine was tested as an add-on to conventional medication.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

High risk Symptoms and endoscopic results were assessed by participants and physicians who are (probably) unblinded.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

Low risk There were no withdrawals and dropouts.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk All planned outcomes were reported in detail.

Other bias Unclear risk This may not be a truly randomised trial because there was no description on randomisation method.

Lin (2014)[15]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk Random number table was used.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of allocation concealment.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

High risk Herbal medicine was tested as an add-on to conventional medication.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

High risk Symptoms and endoscopic results were assessed by participants and physicians who are (probably) unblinded.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

Low risk Analyses were based on an intention-to-treat basis.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk Endoscopic results were reported without pre-defined criteria for grading.

Other bias Low risk Nothing particular.Wang (2013)[16]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of random sequence generation.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of allocation concealment.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

High risk Herbal medicine was tested as an add-on to conventional medication.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

High risk Symptoms and endoscopic results were assessed by participants and physicians who are (probably) unblinded.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

Low risk Analyses were based on an intention-to-treat basis.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk Important outcome of interest, i.e. remission, was reported.

Other bias Unclear risk This may not be a truly randomised trial because there was no description on randomisation method.

Jiang (2011)[17]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of random sequence generation.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of allocation concealment.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

High risk Herbal medicine was tested as an add-on to conventional medication.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

High risk Symptoms and endoscopic results were assessed by participants and physicians who are (probably) unblinded.

Incomplete outcome data Low risk There were no withdrawals and dropouts.

(attrition bias)Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk Symptoms and endoscopic evaluations were reported without a reference, i.e. pre-defined or validated criteria for grading.

Other bias Unclear risk This may not be a truly randomised trial because there were no descriptions on randomisation method, and dropouts and withdrawals.

Shen (2010)[18]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of random sequence generation.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of allocation concealment.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

High risk Herbal medicine was tested as an add-on to conventional medication.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

High risk Symptoms and endoscopic results were assessed by participants and physicians who are (probably) unblinded.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

Low risk Analyses were based on an intention-to-treat basis.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk Important outcome of interest, i.e. remission, was reported.

Other bias Unclear risk This may not be a truly randomised trial because there were no descriptions on randomisation method.

Shi (2009)[19]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of random sequence generation.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of allocation concealment.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

High risk Herbal medicine was tested as an add-on to conventional medication.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

High risk Symptoms and endoscopic results were assessed by participants and physicians who are (probably) unblinded.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

Unclear risk There was no description on withdrawals and dropouts and the analyses were based on the participants who completed the trial.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk Important outcome of interest, i.e. remission, was reported.

Other bias Unclear risk This may not be a truly randomised trial because there were no descriptions on randomisation method, and dropouts and withdrawals.

Chang (2007)[20]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of random sequence generation.

Allocation concealment Unclear risk No description of allocation concealment.

(selection bias)Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

High risk Herbal medicine was tested as an add-on to conventional medication.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

High risk Symptoms and endoscopic results were assessed by participants and physicians who are (probably) unblinded.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

Low risk There were no dropouts and withdrawals.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk All planned outcomes were reported in detail.

Other bias Unclear risk This may not be a truly randomised trial because there were no descriptions on randomisation method, and dropouts and withdrawals.

Wu (2007)[21]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of random sequence generation.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of allocation concealment.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

High risk Herbal medicine was tested as an add-on to conventional medication.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

High risk Symptoms and endoscopic results were assessed by participants and physicians who are (probably) unblinded.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

Low risk Analyses were based on an intention-to-treat basis.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk Symptoms and endoscopic evaluations were reported without a reference, i.e. pre-defined or validated criteria for grading.

Other bias Unclear risk This may not be a truly randomised trial because there was no description on randomisation method.

Wang W (2003)[22]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of random sequence generation.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of allocation concealment.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

High risk Herbal medicine was tested as an add-on to conventional medication.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

High risk Symptoms and endoscopic results were assessed by participants and physicians who are (probably) unblinded.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

Low risk Analyses were based on an intention-to-treat basis.

Selective reporting (reporting Low risk All planned outcomes were reported in detail.

bias)Other bias Unclear risk This may not be a truly randomised trial because there was no description on

randomisation method.Wang X (2003)[23]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of random sequence generation.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of allocation concealment.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

High risk Herbal medicine was tested as an add-on to conventional medication.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

High risk Symptoms and endoscopic results were assessed by participants and physicians who are (probably) unblinded.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

Low risk Analyses were based on an intention-to-treat basis.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk Symptoms and endoscopic evaluations were reported without a reference, i.e. pre-defined or validated criteria for grading.

Other bias Unclear risk This may not be a truly randomised trial because there was no description on randomisation method.

Fernández-Bañares (1999)[24]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk Allocation sequence was computer-generated.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk "The randomization was governed by a centrally held code to ensure an equal and random allocation at each center."

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

High risk The study was an open-label trial. (Herbal medicine was tested as an add-on to conventional medication.)

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

High risk Patients who were not blinded wrote a daily symptom diary.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

High risk Not all patients were included in analysis.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk All planned outcomes were reported in detail.

Other bias Low risk Nothing particular.CDZheng (2015)[25]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of random sequence generation.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of allocation concealment.

Blinding of participants and High risk Herbal medicine was tested as an add-on to conventional medication.

personnel (performance bias)Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

High risk Symptoms and endoscopic results were assessed by participants and physicians who are (probably) unblinded.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

Low risk There were no withdrawals and dropouts.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk All planned outcomes were reported in detail.

Other bias Unclear risk This may not be a truly randomised trial because there was no description on randomisation method.

Holtmeier (2011)[26]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk “Eighty two patients were randomized according to a computer-generated randomization scheme.”

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk “Due to a low patient recruitment rate and a comparatively high dropout rate we decided to perform an unscheduled interim analysis with known treatment strata A and B, but unknown allocation of drug and placebo to A and B. ... Medication was dispensed to each center in coded identical-appearing boxes.”

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

Low risk “The placebo was the same soft gelatin capsule containing propylene glycol monolaurate and the excipients only. ... Blinding was done by providing placebo capsules that were of identical appearance (size, colour, weight, taste) in comparison to verum.”

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

Low risk The participants were blinded outcome assessors.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

Low risk Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were done and compared.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk All planned outcomes were reported in detail although the trial was stopped early.

Other bias Low risk Nothing particular.Sandborn (2010)[27]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of random sequence generation.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of allocation concealment.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

Low risk The study used a placebo control.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

Low risk The outcome was assessed by using CDAI, which consists of objective outcomes (e.g., number of liquid or soft stools and hematocrit) and subjective outcomes (e.g., abdominal pain and general wellbeing) assessed by patients who were blinded.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

Unclear risk No description of dropout rate.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk All planned outcomes were reported in detail.

Other bias Unclear risk Because the study was not published as a form of full-text article, only partial information was reported.

Krebs (2010)[28]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of random sequence generation.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of allocation concealment.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

High risk This study was an open-label trial. (Herbal medicine was tested as an add-on to conventional medication.)

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

High risk Symptoms and endoscopic results were assessed by participants and physicians who are (probably) unblinded.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

Low risk There were no withdrawals and dropouts.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk All planned outcomes were reported in detail.

Other bias Unclear risk This may not be a truly randomised trial because there was no description on randomisation method.

Omer (2007)[29]

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of random sequence generation.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk No description of allocation concealment.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)

Low risk The study used a placebo control.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)

Unclear risk There is no description of the blinding of outcome assessment.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

Low risk There were no withdrawals and dropouts.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk All planned outcomes were reported in detail.

Other bias Unclear risk This may not be a truly randomised trial because there was no description on randomisation method.

References[1] M. Kamali, H. Tavakoli, M. Khodadoost, H. Daghaghzadeh, M. Kamalinejad, L. Gachkar, et al., Efficacy of the Punica granatum peels aqueous extract for symptom management in ulcerative colitis patients. A randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial, Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice 21 (2015) 141-146.[2] M. Rastegarpanah, R. Malekzadeh, H. Vahedi, M. Mohammadi, E. Elahi, M. Chaharmahali, et al., A randomized, double blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial of silymarin in ulcerative colitis, Chinese journal of integrative medicine 21 (2015) 902-906.[3] A. Lang, N. Salomon, J.C. Wu, U. Kopylov, A. Lahat, O. Har-Noy, et al., Curcumin in combination with mesalamine induces remission in patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis in a randomized controlled trial, Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association 13 (2015) 1444-1449. e1441.[4] P. Irving, T. Iqbal, C. Nwokolo, S. Subramanian, S. Bloom, N. Prasad, et al., Cannabidiol for symptomatic treatment of ulcerative colitis: Results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group, multi-centred pilot study, Journal of Crohn's and Colitis 9 (2015) S287-S287.[5] G.W. Dryden, A. Lam, K. Beatty, H.H. Qazzaz, C.J. McClain, A Pilot Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of an Oral Dose of (−)-Epigallocatechin-3-Gallate–Rich Polyphenon E in Patients With Mild to Moderate Ulcerative Colitis, Inflammatory bowel diseases 19 (2013) 1904-1912.[6] W.J. Sandborn, S.R. Targan, V.S. Byers, D.A. Rutty, H. Mu, X. Zhang, et al., Andrographis paniculata extract (HMPL-004) for active ulcerative colitis, Am J Gastroenterol 108 (2013) 90-98.[7] H. Hanai, T. Iida, K. Takeuchi, F. Watanabe, Y. Maruyama, A. Andoh, et al., Curcumin maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis: randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association 4 (2006) 1502-1506.[8] L. Langmead, R.M. Feakins, S. Goldthorpe, H. Holt, E. Tsironi, A. De Silva, et al., Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of oral aloe vera gel for active ulcerative colitis, Aliment Pharmacol Ther 19 (2004) 739-747.[9] E. Ben-Arye, E. Goldin, D. Wengrower, A. Stamper, R. Kohn, E. Berry, Wheat grass juice in the treatment of active distal ulcerative colitis: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial, Scand J Gastroenterol 37 (2002) 444-449.[10] S.M. Greenfield, A.T. Green, J.P. Teare, A.P. Jenkins, N.A. Punchard, C.C. Ainley, et al., A randomized controlled study of evening primrose oil and fish oil in ulcerative colitis, Aliment Pharmacol Ther 7 (1993) 159-166.[11] C. Hallert, M. Kaldma, B.G. Petersson, Ispaghula Husk May Relieve Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Ulcerative Colitis in Remission, Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 26 (1991) 747-750.[12] Y. Liu, Clinical observation of Guchang Zhixie Pills combined with Compound Glutamin Entersoluble Capsules in treatment of ulcerative colitis, Drugs & Clinic 31 (2016) 182-185.[13] C. Jia, H. Wang, 80 Cases with Active Ulcerative Colitis Treated by Integrative Chinese and Western Medicine, Henan Traditional Chinese Medicine 35 (2015) 618-619.[14] Z. Li, J. Xie, H. Zhang, N. Dong, Chang Yu Ning in the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis (Damp-heat Stagnation and Spleen Deficiency Type) Clinical Observation, Journal of Aerospace Medicine 26 (2015) 1445-1446.[15] J. Lin, The clinical observation of Changyuning about the serum C-reactive protein in patients with active ulcerative colitis [in Chinese], Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, 2014.[16] H. Wang, The study on the effect of Chang Yu Ning granules on intestinal mucosal interleukin-1, interleukin-8 on active ulcerative colitis patients (colorectal Damp-heat) [in Chinese], Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, 2013.

[17] C. Jiang, S. Zhang, L. Yan, Clinical observation of combining Bupiyichang pill with sulfasalazine for the treatment of ulcerative colitis [in Chinese], Clin Med Engineering 18 (2011) 359-360.[18] G. Shen, Clinical observation of combined therapy of Bupiyichang pill with balsalazide for the treatment of ulcerative colitis [in Chinese], Chin Pract J Rural Doctor 17 (2010) 32.[19] G. Shi, Effect of Chang Yu Ning on IL-8 of ulcerative colitis in rats and related clinical research of this disease [in Chinese], Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, 2009.[20] D. Chang, S.-X. Lao, Y.-W. Fan, Y.-S. Tao, S.-Y. Zhu, D.-P. Zhang, Clinical observation on 30 cases of ulcerative colitis of damp heat in the large intestine stagnation type treated with Kuijieling granules combinated SASP [in Chinese], Liaoning J Trad Chin Med 34 (2007) 1566-1567.[21] H. Wu, Z. Shen, X. Ma, A combination therapy of Changyanning syrup and sulfasalazine for the treatment of ulcerative colitis [in Chinese], Zhejiang J Integr Trad Chin West Med 17 (2007) 296-297.[22] W. Wang, C. Zheng, X. Song, 60 cases of ulcerative colitis treated with integrated Chinese and Western Medicine [in Chinese], J Pract Trad Chin Intern Med 17 (2003) 27.[23] X. Wang, L. Zheng, Observation of the therapeutic effect of integrated Chinese and Western Medicine on ulcerative colitis [in Chinese], Modern J Integr Trad Chin West Med 12 (2003) 366-367.[24] F. Fernández-Bañares, J. Hinojosa, J.L. Sánchez-Lombraña, E. Navarro, J.F. Martínez-Salmerón, A. García-Pugés, et al., Randomized clinical trial of Plantago ovata seeds (dietary fiber) as compared with mesalamine in maintaining remission in ulcerative colitis, Am J Gastroenterol 94 (1999) 427-433.[25] X. Zheng, M. Cai, L. Huang, Observation of treatment effect of methotrexate combined with Shen Ling Bai Zhu Wan on intractable Crohn's disease, Modern Journal of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine 24 (2015) 3458-3460.[26] W. Holtmeier, S. Zeuzem, J. Preiβ, W. Kruis, S. Böhm, C. Maaser, et al., Randomized, placebo‐controlled, double‐blind trial of Boswellia serrata in maintaining remission of Crohn's disease: Good safety profile but lack of efficacy, Inflammatory bowel diseases 17 (2011) 573-582.[27] W. Sandborn, S. Targan, V. Byers, T. Tang, Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of andrographis paniculata extract (HMPL-004) in patients with moderately active crohn's disease, American journal of gastroenterology, 2010, pp. S429-s430.[28] S. Krebs, T.N. Omer, B. Omer, Wormwood (Artemisia absinthium) suppresses tumour necrosis factor alpha and accelerates healing in patients with Crohn's disease - A controlled clinical trial, Phytomedicine : international journal of phytotherapy and phytopharmacology 17 (2010) 305-309.[29] B. Omer, S. Krebs, H. Omer, T.O. Noor, Steroid-sparing effect of wormwood (Artemisia absinthium) in Crohn's disease: a double-blind placebo-controlled study, Phytomedicine : international journal of phytotherapy and phytopharmacology 14 (2007) 87-95.