The Efficacy of Yanghe Decoction on Diabetic Foot: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Purpose To evaluate the potential clinical effect of Yanghe decoction on diabetic foot. Methods We comprehensively searched Web of Science, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP databases from their inception to December 6, 2025, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating Yanghe decoction for DF. Meta‐analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 and Stata 15.0 software. Results A total of 15 studies with 1224 patients were included, 614 in the treatment group and 610 in the control group. The results suggest that the total effective rate of the treatment group may be higher than that of the control group (RR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.29, p < 0.00001). The wound healing time of the treatment group may be shorter than that of the control group (MD = −9.36, 95% CI: −14.21 to −4.50, p = 0.0002), and the treatment group may have potential advantages over the control group in the improvement of wound area after treatment (SMD = −2.57, 95%CI: −3.94 to −1.20, p = 0.0002). There was no statistically significant difference in the ankle‐brachial index (ABI) between the treatment group and the control group (MD = 0.05, 95% CI: −0.09 to 0.18, p = 0.51). The funnel plot of the total effective rate between the treatment group and the control group suggested that there was a publication bias in the effective rate. Further analysis of the results by the nonparametric trim and filling method suggested that the results of the meta‐analysis were relatively stable, and the possible publication bias did not substantially affect the results. Conclusions Low certainty evidence suggests that Yanghe decoction may potentially improve the clinical symptoms of diabetic foot, may shorten the wound healing time, and may reduce the wound area. However, the independent clinical efficacy of Yanghe decoction for diabetic foot cannot be determined due to the high heterogeneity of cointerventions in the included studies. This study is further limited by the insufficient quantity and quality of the included studies, and the above tentative implications need to be verified by more large‐sample and multicenter RCT studies that standardize interventions and control for cointervention variables.