Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26928206›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Adverse Effects of Plant Food Supplements Self-Reported by Consumers in the PlantLIBRA Survey Involving Six European Countries.

Patrizia Restani, Chiara Di Lorenzo, Alicia Garcia-Alvarez, Mihaela Badea, Alessandro Ceschi, Bernadette Egan, Lorena Dima, Saskia Lüde, Franco M Maggi, Angela Marculescu and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

15 authors.

Patrizia RestaniDipartimento di Scienze Farmacologiche e Biomolecolari, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy.
Chiara Di LorenzoDipartimento di Scienze Farmacologiche e Biomolecolari, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy.
Alicia Garcia-AlvarezFundación para la Investigacion Nutricional, Barcelona Science Park, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Mihaela BadeaTransilvania University of Brasov, Brasov, Romania.
Alessandro CeschiNational Poisons Center, Tox Info Suisse, Associated Institute of the University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Bernadette EganFood, Consumer Behaviour and Health Research Centre, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Lorena DimaTransilvania University of Brasov, Brasov, Romania.
Saskia LüdeNational Poisons Center, Tox Info Suisse, Associated Institute of the University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Franco M MaggiDipartimento di Scienze Farmacologiche e Biomolecolari, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy.
Angela MarculescuTransilvania University of Brasov, Brasov, Romania.
Raimon Milà-VillarroelFundación para la Investigacion Nutricional, Barcelona Science Park, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Monique M RaatsFood, Consumer Behaviour and Health Research Centre, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Lourdes Ribas-BarbaFundación para la Investigacion Nutricional, Barcelona Science Park, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Liisa UusitaloFinnish Food Safety Authority Evira, Helsinki, Finland.
Lluís Serra-MajemFundación para la Investigacion Nutricional, Barcelona Science Park, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of food supplements containing botanicals is increasing in European markets. Although intended to maintain the health status, several cases of adverse effects to Plant Food Supplements (PFS) have been described.

objectivesTo describe the self-reported adverse effects collected during the European PlantLIBRA PFS Consumer Survey 2011-2012, with a critical evaluation of the plausibility of the symptomatology reported using data from the literature and from the PlantLIBRA Poisons Centers' survey. SUBJECTS/

settingFrom the total sample of 2359 consumers involved in the consumers' survey, 82 subjects reported adverse effects due to a total of 87 PFS.

resultsCases were self-reported, therefore causality was not classified on the basis of clinical evidence, but by using the frequency/strength of adverse effects described in scientific papers: 52 out of 87 cases were defined as possible (59.8%) and 4 as probable (4.6%). Considering the most frequently cited botanicals, eight cases were due to Valeriana officinalis (garden valerian); seven to Camellia sinensis (tea); six to Ginkgo biloba (Maidenhair tree) and Paullinia cupana (guarana). Most adverse events related to the gastrointestinal tract, nervous and cardiovascular systems.

conclusionsComparing the data from this study with those published in scientific papers and obtained by the PlantLIBRA Poisons Centers' survey, some important conclusions can be drawn: severe adverse effects to PFS are quite rare, although mild or moderate adverse symptoms can be present. Data reported in this paper can help health professionals (and in particular family doctors) to become aware of possible new problems associated with the increasing use of food supplements containing botanicals.

Indexed as

Self ReportDietary SupplementsEuropeFemaleHumansMalePlant PreparationsPlant Preparations

Identifiers

PMID26928206
PMCPMC4771165

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.