The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Critical Approach to Evaluating Clinical Efficacy, Adverse Events and Drug Interactions of Herbal Remedies
Open accessAbstract
Systematic reviews and meta‐analyses represent the uppermost ladders in the hierarchy of evidence. Systematic reviews/meta‐analyses suggest preliminary or satisfactory clinical evidence for agnus castus (Vitex agnus castus) for premenstrual complaints, flaxseed (Linum usitatissimum) for hypertension, feverfew (Tanacetum partenium) for migraine prevention, ginger (Zingiber officinalis) for pregnancy‐induced nausea, ginseng (Panax ginseng) for improving fasting glucose levels as well as phytoestrogens and St John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) for the relief of some symptoms in menopause. However, firm conclusions of efficacy cannot be generally drawn. On the other hand, inconclusive evidence of efficacy or contradictory results have been reported for Aloe vera in the treatment of psoriasis, cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon) in cystitis prevention, ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba) for tinnitus and intermittent claudication, echinacea (Echinacea spp.) for the prevention of common cold and pomegranate (Punica granatum) for the prevention/treatment of cardiovascular diseases. A critical evaluation of the clinical data regarding the adverse effects has shown that herbal remedies are generally better tolerated than synthetic medications. Nevertheless, potentially serious adverse events, including herb–drug interactions, have been described. This suggests the need to be vigilant when using herbal remedies, particularly in specific conditions, such as during pregnancy and in the paediatric population. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Use of herbal products and potential interactions in patients with cardiovascular diseases
Tachjian, A., Maria, V., & Jahangir, A. (2010) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2009.07.074 · Cited by 426
Pycnogenol® in Metabolic Syndrome and Related Disorders
Gulati, O. P. (2015) · Phytotherapy Research · doi:10.1002/ptr.5341 · Cited by 39
Cited by
Functional Foods and Lifestyle Approaches for Diabetes Prevention and Management
Alkhatib, A., Tsang, C., Tiss, A., Bahorun, T., Arefanian, H., Barake, R., Khadir, A., & Tuomilehto, J. (2017) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu9121310 · Cited by 376
Probiotics, fibre and herbal medicinal products for functional and inflammatory bowel disorders
Currò, D., Ianiro, G., Pecere, S., Bibbò, S., & Cammarota, G. (2017) · British Journal of Pharmacology · doi:10.1111/bph.13632 · Cited by 160
Zhu, L., Mei, X., Zhang, Z., Xie, Y., & Lang, F. (2019) · Phytotherapy Research · doi:10.1002/ptr.6257 · Cited by 76
Medicinal Plants with Antiplatelet Activity
El Haouari, M., & Rosado, J. A. (2016) · Phytotherapy Research · doi:10.1002/ptr.5619 · Cited by 54
Cicero, A. F. G., Fogacci, F., Bove, M., Giovannini, M., & Borghi, C. (2019) · Phytotherapy Research · doi:10.1002/ptr.6402 · Cited by 51
Metadata
- Authors
- Izzo, A. A., Hoon‐Kim, S., Radhakrishnan, R., & Williamson, E. M.
- Venue
- Phytotherapy Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-02-17
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 691-700
- ISSN
- 0951-418X (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1573
- OpenAlex
- W2284243468
- Cited by
- 532
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 108.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.