The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Saw Palmetto for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Saw palmetto is used by over 2 million men in the United States for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia and is commonly recommended as an alternative to drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 225 men over the age of 49 years who had moderate-to-severe symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia to one year of treatment with saw palmetto extract (160 mg twice a day) or placebo. The primary outcome measures were changes in the scores on the American Urological Association Symptom Index (AUASI) and the maximal urinary flow rate. Secondary outcome measures included changes in prostate size, residual urinary volume after voiding, quality of life, laboratory values, and the rate of reported adverse effects. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the saw palmetto and placebo groups in the change in AUASI scores (mean difference, 0.04 point; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.93 to 1.01), maximal urinary flow rate (mean difference, 0.43 ml per minute; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.52 to 1.38), prostate size, residual volume after voiding, quality of life, or serum prostate-specific antigen levels during the one-year study. The incidence of side effects was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, saw palmetto did not improve symptoms or objective measures of benign prostatic hyperplasia. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00037154.).
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
No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons.
Rothman, K. J. (1990) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/00001648-199001000-00010 · Cited by 5,965
Cited by
Plant terpenes: defense responses, phylogenetic analysis, regulation and clinical applications
Singh, B., & Sharma, R. A. (2015) · 3 Biotech · doi:10.1007/s13205-014-0220-2 · Cited by 562
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
Arentz, S., Abbott, J. A., Smith, C. A., & Bensoussan, A. (2014) · BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine · doi:10.1186/1472-6882-14-511 · Cited by 191
Metadata
- Authors
- Bent, S., Kane, C., Shinohara, K., Neuhaus, J., Hudes, E. S., Goldberg, H., & Avins, A. L.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2006-02-09
- Volume
- 354
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 557-566
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2160393850
- Cited by
- 401
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 37.03
- 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.