Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25628834›Full record

ReviewIranian journal of cancer prevention2012

Evaluation of effectiveness of herbal medication in cancer care: a review study.

Javad Tavakoli, Solaleh Miar, Mohammad Majid Zadehzare, Hossein Akbari

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Iranian journal of cancer prevention, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

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

  1. Efficacy of Saffron (Integrative cancer therapies
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Development of Daruharidra (Current pharmaceutical biotechnology · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Anticancer acumens of three Annona species: a proportional review.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

4 authors.

Javad TavakoliDept. of Biomedical Engineering, Biomedical Engineering Faculty, Science and Research Branch of Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
Solaleh MiarDept. of Biomedical Engineering, Biomedical Engineering Faculty, Science and Research Branch of Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
Mohammad Majid ZadehzareDept. of Biomedical Engineering, Biomedical Engineering Faculty, Science and Research Branch of Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
Hossein AkbariDept. of Biomedical Engineering, Biomedical Engineering Faculty, Science and Research Branch of Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Based on a common belief, herbal medicine with the least possible side effects should be the center of attention in cancer care; however, in many cases they have not been properly studied with reliable clinical trials in human subjects. In this review, it was attempted to identify the available evidence on the use and clinical effects of herbs in cancer care. The research consists of two major parts including immunomodulator and chemopreventive herbal compounds whose mechanism, biological response, anticancer element of extract and related benefits were completely studied. Also, the safety of herbal anticancer compounds was discussed. Although the use of herbal medicines in treating cancer shows less chemotherapy-induced, toxicity, more researches are required to reach their full therapeutic potentials.

Indexed as

Immunologic factorsNeoplasmsPlantsPreventionSafety

Identifiers

PMID25628834
PMCPMC4294537

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.