Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19091760›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2008

Frankincense: systematic review.

E Ernst

Abstract readSystematic ReviewTechnical Report
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Effect ofNutrients · 2026
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Molecular structure of 3-Beilstein journal of organic chemistry · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Advances in radiation oncology · 2025
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Possible role of frankincense in the treatment of benign essential blepharospasm.American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

E ErnstComplementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth, Exeter EX2 4NT, UK. edzard.ernst@pms.ac.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess evidence from randomised clinical trials about the effectiveness of extracts of Boswellia serrata (frankincense).

designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches on Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Amed, and Cochrane Library. Hand searches of conference proceedings, bibliographies, and departmental files. REVIEW

methodsAll randomised clinical trials of B serrata extract as a treatment for any human medical condition were included and studies of B serrata preparations combined with other ingredients were excluded. Titles and abstracts of all retrieved articles were read and hard copies of all relevant articles were obtained. Selection of studies, data extraction and validation were done by the author. The Jadad score was used to evaluate the methodological quality of all included trials.

resultsOf 47 potentially relevant studies, seven met all inclusion criteria (five placebo controlled, two with active controls). The included trials related to asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease, osteoarthritis, and collagenous colitis. Results of all trials indicated that B serrata extracts were clinically effective. Three studies were of good methodological quality. No serious safety issues were noted.

conclusionsThe evidence for the effectiveness of B serrata extracts is encouraging but not compelling.

Indexed as

BoswelliaPhytotherapyHumansPlant ExtractsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicPlant Extracts

Identifiers

PMID19091760
PMCPMC2605614

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.