Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12680880›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2003

Quality, efficacy and safety of complementary medicines: fashions, facts and the future. Part II: Efficacy and safety.

Joanne Barnes

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
22.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 156 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Chinese herbal medicines for hypercholesterolemia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Natural health product-drug interaction tool: A scoping review.Canadian pharmacists journal : CPJ = Revue des pharmaciens du Canada : RPC · 2016
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Tracking and treating activated T cells.Journal of drug delivery science and technology · 2013
    Article
  14. Randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trial of echinacea supplementation in air travellers.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2012
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Homoeopathic and herbal prescribing in general practice in Scotland.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2006
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joanne BarnesCentre for Pharmacognosy & Phytotherapy, School of Pharmacy, University of London, 29-39 Brunswick Square, London WC1N 1AX, UK. joanne.barnes@ulsop.ac.uk
University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This is the second of two papers which review issues concerning complementary medicines. The first reviewed the extent of use of complementary medicines, and issues related to the regulation and pharmaceutical quality of these products; the second considers evidence for the efficacy of several well-known complementary medicines, and discusses complementary-medicines pharmacovigilance. The term complementary medicines describes a range of pharmaceutical-type preparations, including herbal medicines, homoeopathic remedies, essential oils and dietary supplements, which mainly sit outside conventional medicine. The use of complementary medicines is a popular healthcare approach in the UK, and there are signs that the use of such products is continuing to increase. Patients and the public use complementary medicines for health maintenance, for the treatment or prevention of minor ailments, and also for serious, chronic illnesses. There is a growing body of evidence from randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews to support the efficacy of certain herbal extracts and dietary supplements in particular conditions. However, many other preparations remain untested. Strictly speaking, evidence of efficacy (and safety) for herbal medicines should be considered to be extract specific. Pharmacovigilance for complementary medicines is in its infancy. Data are lacking in several areas relevant to safety. Standard pharmacovigilance tools have additional limitations when applied to investigating safety concerns with complementary medicines.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesConsumer Product SafetyDietary SupplementsHerbal MedicineHomeopathyHumansOils, VolatileQuality of Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicOils, Volatile

Identifiers

PMID12680880
PMCPMC1884225
OpenAlexW2132451315

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.