Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21871125›Full record

SynthesisBMC complementary and alternative medicine2011

Safety of higher dosages of Viscum album L. in animals and humans--systematic review of immune changes and safety parameters.

Gunver S Kienle, Renate Grugel, Helmut Kiene

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC complementary and alternative medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 103 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Chronobiology ofFrontiers in physiology · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. The Anti-Inflammatory Activity ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  9. Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Statement to an Insufficient Systematic Review onEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Mistletoe and Immunomodulation: Insights and Implications for Anticancer Therapies.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2019
    Review
  19. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gunver S KienleInstitute for Applied Epistemology and Medical Methodology, University of Witten/Herdecke, Zechenweg 6, 79111 Freiburg, Germany. gunver.kienle@ifaemm.de
Renate Grugel
Helmut Kiene
Witten/Herdecke University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundViscum album L extracts (VAE, mistletoe) and isolated mistletoe lectins (ML) have immunostimulating properties and a strong dose-dependent cytotoxic activity. They are frequently used in complementary cancer treatment, mainly to improve quality of life, but partly also to influence tumour growth, especially by injecting VAE locally and in high dosage. The question is raised whether these higher dosages can induce any harm or immunosuppressive effects.

methodsSystematic review of all experiments and clinical studies investigating higher dosages of VAE in animals and humans (Viscum album > 1 mg in humans corresponding to > 0.02 mg/kg in animals or ML > 1 ng/kg) and assessing immune parameters or infections or adverse drug reactions.

results69 clinical studies and 48 animal experiments reported application of higher doses of VAE or ML and had assessed immune changes and/or harm. In these studies, Viscum album was applied in dosages up to 1500 mg in humans and 1400 mg/kg in animals, ML was applied up to 6.4 μg/kg in humans and in animals up to 14 μg/kg subcutaneously, 50 μg/kg nasally and 500 μg/kg orally. A variety of immune parameters showed fluctuating or rising outcomes, but no immunosuppressive effect. Side effects consisted mainly of dose-dependent flu-like symptoms (FLS), fever, local reactions at the injection site and various mild unspecific effects. Occasionally, allergic reactions were reported. After application of high doses of recombinant ML, reversible hepatotoxicity was observed in some cases.

conclusionsApplication of higher dosages of VAE or ML is not accompanied by immunosuppression; altogether VAE seems to exhibit low risk but should be monitored by clinicians when applied in high dosages.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntineoplastic Agents, PhytogenicClinical Trials as TopicDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansNeoplasmsPlant ExtractsViscum albumAntineoplastic Agents, PhytogenicPlant Extracts

Identifiers

PMID21871125
PMCPMC3180269
OpenAlexW2071109255

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.