Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26076652›Full record

ReviewDrug safety2015

DNA Barcoding and Pharmacovigilance of Herbal Medicines.

Hugo J de Boer, Mihael C Ichim, Steven G Newmaster

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drug safety, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 77 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed
–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

77 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. The complete chloroplast genome ofFrontiers in genetics · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Rapid authentication of endangeredFrontiers in plant science · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Quality Consistency of Herbal Products: Chemical Evaluation.Progress in the chemistry of organic natural products · 2023
    Article

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Hugo J de BoerThe Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, hugo.deboer@ebc.uu.se.
Mihael C Ichim
Steven G Newmaster

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pharmacovigilance of herbal medicines relies on the product label information regarding the ingredients and the adherence to good manufacturing practices along the commercialisation chain. Several studies have shown that substitution of plant species occurs in herbal medicines, and this in turn poses a challenge to herbal pharmacovigilance as adverse reactions might be due to adulterated or added ingredients. Authentication of constituents in herbal medicines using analytical chemistry methods can help detect contaminants and toxins, but are often limited or incapable of detecting the source of the contamination. Recent developments in molecular plant identification using DNA sequence data enable accurate identification of plant species from herbal medicines using defined DNA markers. Identification of multiple constituent species from compound herbal medicines using amplicon metabarcoding enables verification of labelled ingredients and detection of substituted, adulterated and added species. DNA barcoding is proving to be a powerful method to assess species composition in herbal medicines and has the potential to be used as a standard method in herbal pharmacovigilance research of adverse reactions to specific products.

Indexed as

DNA Barcoding, TaxonomicPharmacovigilanceDNA, PlantDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsGenetic MarkersHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansPlant PreparationsSequence Analysis, DNASpecies SpecificityDNA, PlantGenetic MarkersPlant Preparations

Identifiers

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.