Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27425643›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of pharmacology2017

The oxidative stress theory of disease: levels of evidence and epistemological aspects.

Pietro Ghezzi, Vincent Jaquet, Fabrizio Marcucci, Harald H H W Schmidt

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of pharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
14.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

85 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 180 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Something Is Rotten in the State of Redox.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Antioxidants: A Hot Controversy Defused by Cool Semantics.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article

25 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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.

Pietro GhezziBrighton & Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK.
Vincent JaquetDepartment of Pathology and Immunology, Medical School, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Fabrizio MarcucciDepartment of Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Harald H H W SchmidtMaastricht University, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Brighton and Sussex Medical School · GBMaastricht University · NLUniversity of Geneva · CHUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The theory that oxidative stress (OS) is at the root of several diseases is extremely popular. However, so far, no antioxidant has been recommended or offered by healthcare systems neither has any been approved as therapy by regulatory agencies that base their decisions on evidence-based medicine. This is simply because, so far, despite many preclinical and clinical studies indicating a beneficial effect of antioxidants in many disease conditions, randomised clinical trials have failed to provide the evidence of efficacy required for drug approval. In this review, we discuss the levels of evidence required to claim causality in preclinical research on OS, the weakness of the oversimplification associated with OS theory of disease and the importance of the narrative in its popularity. Finally, from a more translational perspective, we discuss the reasons why antioxidants acting by scavenging ROS might not only prevent their detrimental effects but also interfere with essential signalling roles. We propose that ROS have a complex metabolism and are generated by different enzymes at diverse sites and at different times. Aggregating this plurality of systems into a single theory of disease may not be the best way to develop new drugs, and future research may need to focus on specific oxygen-toxifying pathways rather than on non-specific ROS scavengers. Finally, similarly to what is nowadays required for clinical trials, we recommend making unpublished data available in repositories (open data), as this will allow big data approaches or meta-analyses, without the drawbacks of publication bias. LINKED ARTICLES: This article is part of a themed section on Redox Biology and Oxidative Stress in Health and Disease. To view the other articles in this section visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.v174.12/issuetoc.

Indexed as

DiseaseOxidative StressAnimalsAntioxidantsHumansReactive Oxygen SpeciesAntioxidantsReactive Oxygen Species

Identifiers

PMID27425643
PMCPMC5446567
OpenAlexW2472004651

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.