Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24454289›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2014

The growing use of herbal medicines: issues relating to adverse reactions and challenges in monitoring safety.

Martins Ekor

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1,060 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1,060citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

1,060 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  16. Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  17. Mechanistic Insights intoInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

1,000 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Martins EkorDepartment of Pharmacology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Cape Coast Cape Coast, Ghana.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of herbal medicinal products and supplements has increased tremendously over the past three decades with not less than 80% of people worldwide relying on them for some part of primary healthcare. Although therapies involving these agents have shown promising potential with the efficacy of a good number of herbal products clearly established, many of them remain untested and their use are either poorly monitored or not even monitored at all. The consequence of this is an inadequate knowledge of their mode of action, potential adverse reactions, contraindications, and interactions with existing orthodox pharmaceuticals and functional foods to promote both safe and rational use of these agents. Since safety continues to be a major issue with the use of herbal remedies, it becomes imperative, therefore, that relevant regulatory authorities put in place appropriate measures to protect public health by ensuring that all herbal medicines are safe and of suitable quality. This review discusses toxicity-related issues and major safety concerns arising from the use of herbal medicinal products and also highlights some important challenges associated with effective monitoring of their safety.

Indexed as

adverse reactionschallengesherbal medicinesmonitoring safetypublic health

Identifiers

PMID24454289
PMCPMC3887317

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.