ReviewEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2016
Medicinal Plants from Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean Used as Immunostimulants.
Review in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bioactive Molecules from Tropical American Plants: Potential Anti-Inflammatory Agents for Cytokine Storm Management.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Induction of Monoterpenoid Oxindole Alkaloids Production and Related Biosynthetic Gene Expression in Response to Signaling Molecules inPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the cytotoxic and immunogenic potential of temozolamide, panobinostat, andEXCLI journal · 2021Article
- Ethnomedicine of Tetun ethnic people in West Timor Indonesia; philosophy and practice in the treatment of malaria.Integrative medicine research · 2019Article
- Anti-inflammatory and nephroprotective activity of Juglans mollis against renal ischemia-reperfusion damage in a Wistar rat model.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A literature review was undertaken by analyzing distinguished books, undergraduate and postgraduate theses, and peer-reviewed scientific articles and by consulting worldwide accepted scientific databases, such as SCOPUS, Web of Science, SCIELO, Medline, and Google Scholar. Medicinal plants used as immunostimulants were classified into two categories: (1) plants with pharmacological studies and (2) plants without pharmacological research. Medicinal plants with pharmacological studies of their immunostimulatory properties were subclassified into four groups as follows: (a) plant extracts evaluated for in vitro effects, (b) plant extracts with documented in vivo effects, (c) active compounds tested on in vitro studies, and (d) active compounds assayed in animal models. Pharmacological studies have been conducted on 29 of the plants, including extracts and compounds, whereas 75 plants lack pharmacological studies regarding their immunostimulatory activity. Medicinal plants were experimentally studied in vitro (19 plants) and in vivo (8 plants). A total of 12 compounds isolated from medicinal plants used as immunostimulants have been tested using in vitro (11 compounds) and in vivo (2 compounds) assays. This review clearly indicates the need to perform scientific studies with medicinal flora from Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean, to obtain new immunostimulatory agents.
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.