ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2012
[Phytotherapy of benign prostate syndrome and prostate cancer: better than placebo].
Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Randomized double-blind controlled clinical trials with herbal preparations of Serenoa repens fruits in treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms : An overview.Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2017Article
- Recent Advances in Drug Design and Drug Discovery for Androgen- Dependent Diseases.Current medicinal chemistry · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In some countries plant extracts have belonged to the most popular drugs for the treatment of the benign prostatic syndrome (BPS) for decades; however, only few of the large number of published studies meet the criteria of the WHO benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) consensus conference. The few placebo-controlled long-term (study period >6 months) studies suggest a positive effect of some extracts (saw palmetto fruit, β-sitosterol, urtica, rye grass and a saw palmetto/urtica combination) on lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), urinary flow rate, post-void residual volume but effects on prostate volume or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were only inconsistently demonstrable. To date no study has proven an effect on disease progression, such as acute urinary retention or need for surgical interventions. Due to the controversial data various extraction techniques and compositions of various products, neither American, European, British nor German BPH guidelines recommend plant extracts for the indication BPS although some placebo-controlled trials provided encouraging data. Further prospective studies according to WHO standards are required to determine the role of plant extracts for the management of BPS. For the indication of prostate cancer (PCa) plant extracts have been evaluated for disease prevention and management of several tumor stages but none of these studies have provided convincing evidence that plant extracts are superior to placebo and none of the Pica guidelines have recommended their use.Based on current knowledge plant extracts can never supplement evidence-based PCa management and should be used only in addition to the standard treatment. There is no scientific evidence for the use of dietary supplementation with high doses of vitamins or selenium-containing products.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.